[wdmmg-discuss] Standards: public bodies publish spending

[CountCulture]

Alistair

Good comments, and I agree with them all. Re standard classification,  
this (I think) was picking up from our discussion at OKCON. It maybe  
that something suitable already exists (COFOG? Something by CIPFA).

Think you've got the Cambridge schema. Any hints there? We should also  
shortly be getting other granular spending data, and there are a few  
people I can ask to shed some light on this.

Chris
-----------
OpenlyLocal :: Making Local Government More Transparent
http://openlylocal.com
Blog: http://countculture.wordpress.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/CountCulture

On 27 May 2010, at 00:58, Alistair Turnbull <apt1002 at goose.minworks.co.uk 
 > wrote:

> On Wed, 26 May 2010, Lisa Evans wrote:
>
>> Together with Chris Taggart at Openly Local, we have come up with a  
>> list of standards we would like to see when public bodies publish  
>> spending data:
>>
>> http://docs.google.com/View?id=dcc9h7b6_56fsgcztdk
>>
>> I would really appreciate any comments and additions.
>
> "a standard list of identifiers ... should be created" - say by whom.
>
> "For example. Departments must show" - Typo ("." should be ",").
>
> "Contracts between governmental entities and third parties should be  
> associated to spending information." - Suggest you turn this around,  
> and say "Where spending/income arises from a contract with a third  
> party, a reference to the contract should be included."
>
> Otherwise, it looks good, and I agree with it all.
>
>    Alistair
>
> _______________________________________________
> wdmmg-discuss mailing list
> wdmmg-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wdmmg-discuss