As you know I’m +1 on the whole approach here - it is, in essence, what the mapping stuff is on the OpenSpending Data Package (we could merge these two convos … - or deprecate one)
I think the detail that @pudo has here is good.
Also if it was not clear already: we (openspending) are not using the BDP model of requiring the naming of the source files to conform to the proposed ideal model (and likely BDP will be updated to be more like OSDP in the nearish future - i hope!)
I think we can distinguish three things to resolve here:
- What is the approximate structure of the ideal “model” we map to e.g. key measures plus “objects/dimensions” e.g. projects, entities, …
- I think what we have as a base is now excellent (e.g. entities, projects, classifications)
- What is the minimum we require of people and what is the minimum we suggest
- I think this is what we have or close to:
- required: i.e. id, amount, date (?)
- recommended: “to” (recipient / supplier)
- remember this should be extensible and we can say: here’s all this other stuff you can do too
- how we actually implement this in the datapackage.json. I would say the approach we have of object types / measures is ok though i would like some super simple option where people do not need to grok the whole conceptual model. I would also advocate the
resource-name/field-namemodel etc
I think we are very close now to having something good enough to run ahead on …