[wdmmg-discuss] Standards: public bodies publish spending

Thu May 27 11:11:02 UTC 2010

On Thu, 27 May 2010, CountCulture wrote:

> Re standard classification, this (I think) was picking up from our 
> discussion at OKCON.

Indeed. :-) But I'm not on the author list any more; Lisa and Rufus have 
taken this over.

> It maybe that something suitable already exists (COFOG? Something by 
> CIPFA).

COFOG is an excellent start, though perhaps not detailed enough. Also, we 
should consider making UK-specific customisations. HMRC have already 
slightly customised COFOG for things like the relationship with the EU, 
and the distinction between local authority debt and central government 
debt, and we should probably incorporate those changes.

I don't know about CIPFA. Tell us more?

> 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.

I'll have to defer to Lisa on that.

 	Alistair

> 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