Closed odscjen closed 1 year ago
These issues are addressed in https://github.com/GFDRR/rdl-standard/pull/181. However, you're right that we do need to decide what to do about making hazards
required on Event_set
.
Personally, I favour fewer required fields to avoid creating unintended barriers to publication. Therefore, I would remove make hazards
optional.
From today's check-in call with @matamadio and @odscrachel, we agreed that Event_set.hazards
should be required and that it is OK for hazard data to be reported at both Event_set
(summary) level and Event
(detailed) level in the case where Event_set.events
is provided.
We'll need to check and update the required fields and descriptions in the schema. Also noting the need to clearly explain the relationship between event sets and events in the documentation, which should be addressed by https://github.com/GFDRR/rdl-standard/issues/178
this has now been dealt with in #181 and reviewing the descriptions they all seem to cover what was agreed so I'm closing this
EDIT: a number of these where already being addressed in another PR #181
Noting a number of necessary minor schema changes that testing of the spreadsheet conversion has brought up.* changeversion
type from "number" to "string"event_set.hazard_type
is down as required, but it's not actually a field withinevent_set
rather its a field withinHazard
which is referenced inevent_set.hazards
.event.hazard
is also down as required andevents
is required inevent_set
. We needed this info at bothevent_set
andevent
level (as discussed in #91) but by having both as required it does mean we're asking people to duplicate info in multiple places in situations where the hazard type and process and intensity measure are the same for every event in the event_set. But maybe that's a price we have to pay to ensure it's included in at least one place? @matamadio @stufraser1 @duncandewhurst thoughts?*Hazard
hasprocess
as required but the field is actuallyprocesses