[wdmmg-discuss] CRA 2010: progress report [was: CRA 2010: description and questions]

Wed Aug 18 11:30:01 UTC 2010

Hi all,

I'm now going through the two CRA datasheets, preparatory to loading them
into the datastore. Here are my findings so far - mostly good news.

Also, a question in section 2 (probably for Will/Lisa).

1. Matching up Tables 9 and 10

You may recall that the Treasury has released the CRA data in two separate
tables this year, so we had to combine them. The good news is that 95% (c.
20,000) of the rows match up easily, so we now have a combined dataset for
these in the same format as CRA2009. The bad news is that 354 of the rows in
Table 9 and 89 of the rows in Table 10 don't match anything in the other
table. Funnily enough, these all have a department code of ENG_HRA or
ENG_LA. The good news is that Lisa has a contact in the Treasury who should
be able to help us how to handle these. We're in contact with her now.

2. COFOG

More good news: COFOG classifications have greatly improved since 2009.
Everything now has a COFOG number, except 78 rows of 'departmental
unallocated provision', and 11 rows that are 'EU transactions' (which
existed in 2009, so we know how to handle them). And there are no more pesky
"of which" classifiers - everything is mapped neatly to a top-level
category.

Question for Will (or Lisa): I need to make a few changes to the
cofog_map.json file in the CRA bitbucket package that maps COFOG
classifiers. Is it OK just to edit this file and check it back in?

Anna

On 12 August 2010 21:40, Lisa Evans <lisa.evans at okfn.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Anna Powell-Smith wrote:
>
>>  We can merge them together - well, assuming that they are consistent
>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>> Cool. Should I start doing this, or do you want to investigate the
>> data any more first?
>>
>
> Hiya. I'm very happy for you to go ahead.
> I can summarise the data though, hopefully that will help.
>
> Table 9 and 10 have to following fields in common:
> Department code
> Department name
> COFOG level 1
> HMT Functional Classification
> POG
> POG alias
> ID and non ID
> CAP or CUR
> And
> spending for dates 2004-05 to 2009-10
>
> when we find a match between table 9 data and table 10 data for the fields
> above then we need to give it:
>
> the NUTS 1 region code and spending for 2010-11 from table 9
>
> and the 'CG LG or PC', COFOG 2 and HMT subfunction class from value from
> table 10
>
> Then I think we will have the full detail of the spending in one line.
>
> Lisa
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/openspending/attachments/20100818/76d9186c/attachment.html>