[openspending-dev] Alternate metadata structure

[Friedrich Lindenberg]

Ok, I've transferred the bulk of the argument here:

https://discuss.okfn.org/t/open-spending-data-structure-ideas-and-suggestions/300/2?u=pudo

Cheers,

- Friedrich


On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Paul Walsh <paulywalsh at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> 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
>
> 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/c92363ca/attachment-0002.html>