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

[William Waites]

(disclaimer: I haven't looked yet at the 2010 data
but am assuming it isn't that different from the
2009 data as I gather from the discussion so far)

On 10-08-18 17:23, Anna Powell-Smith wrote:
> Actually we should think about how best to add LA spending as unique
> items... we have the choice of adding these items classified *either* by
> COFOG 2 or by region, but not both. 

Aren't there three dimensions of the data at play
here?

	entity: local authorities collectively
	region: one of the NUTS regions
	function: something from COFOG

Why do we have to lose any of this information?

If we do have to lose something for some reason,
I would suggest to leave off the COFOG since that
can be inferred from the fact that the entity is
a local authority, whereas it is not possible to
infer the region from the other information we
have.

Cheers,
-w
-- 
William Waites           <william.waites at okfn.org>
Mob: +44 789 798 9965    Open Knowledge Foundation
Fax: +44 131 464 4948                Edinburgh, UK

RDF Indexing, Clustering and Inferencing in Python
		http://ordf.org/