[openspending-dev] Alternate metadata structure

[Paul Walsh]

As noted in the other thread. We can centralise discussion on this here: https://discuss.okfn.org/t/open-spending-data-structure-ideas-and-suggestions/300/1 <https://discuss.okfn.org/t/open-spending-data-structure-ideas-and-suggestions/300/1>

> On 5 May 2015, at 21:41, Friedrich Lindenberg <friedrich at pudo.org> wrote:
> 
> Hey all, 
> 
> following last weeks discussion about data models, I thought I should sit down and write up how I think a more versatile and precise version of the BDP stuff could look like. This is based on the assumption that it is desirable for the data model to
> 
> a) not rely on naming conventions excessively ("Explicit is better than implicit.")
> b) instead, use annotation to express the semantics of the dataset
> c) align for budget comparison outside of the actual source dataset
> d) keep it simple, don't consider hierarchies (cofog1... cofog3) for now
> 
> So here's a guided tour:
> 
> https://gist.github.com/pudo/d810d91778e73e991b48 <https://gist.github.com/pudo/d810d91778e73e991b48>
> 
> I want to emphasise that the additional structure is not just valuable for BI/OLAP use cases, but also needed e.g. to generate a meaningful ElasticSearch mapping, or to generate a transactional network graph.
> 
> Keen to hear what you think! 
> 
> - Friedrich 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> openspending-dev mailing list
> openspending-dev at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/openspending-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/openspending-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/openspending-dev/attachments/20150520/74a33618/attachment-0002.html>