search

cfl / issues_tptd

0 stars 0 forks source link

Ownership of digital assets needs to be a data field #18

Open cflsdeboer opened 1 year ago

cflsdeboer commented 1 year ago

Need to make change to data table so that we can properly display “Sold by League” digital assets (if league is the seller, how do we identify the owner of the asset without having a different “scope” for each team’s website timeframes?)

Provide ownership for all assets/ad_units within the deliverable or the promise, not just digital items. (Currently for games the ownership implied by the home team)

This requires data and UI changes.

cflsdeboer commented 1 year ago

To do this we introduce a new column to the promises and deliverables tables of owning_team_id.

owning_team_id is a foreign key reference to the teams table and cannot be null.

The migration needs to backpop the existing rows of both the modified tables to fill in the column. For deliverables this is set to the agreement team_id. For promises it is set to lease from team id.

The interface change is that when the selected asset is of type Digital (or 2) that then a drop down appears that allows for the selection of the owning team. For deliverables/agreements this should default to the current user's team, for promises/leasebacks it is the lease from team.

ereyescfl commented 1 year ago

From Trevor : Question: Why were there roadblocks when we tried to model this but for digital even though he was was able to do it for signage

Answer: My one undertaking coming out of our TPTD meeting on Tuesday was to provide a description of the obstacle I encountered in modelling the data related to digital assets. My original email to Simon and Mitch, when I encountered this obstacle, is below. I know that Simon and Mitch had some subsequent back-and-forth, but I don’t think this was ever resolved – maybe because I’ve done a poor job of describing the problem, or perhaps because I simply haven’t seen the solution that has already been described.

In any event, from a data modeling perspective, the SIGNAGE asset is different than the DIGITAL asset in that SIGNAGE is sold at the game level, whereas DIGITAL is not. In my data models, I’ve exploited this game-by-game granularity to attach an ownership context to SIGNAGE that otherwise does not exist (ie. Where the game is being played provides the ownership information). That is, the tables, as they are set up, only provides information on the SELLER. And, in certain instances, the SELLER is a different entity than the OWNER. Because we don’t have game-by-game granularity on DIGITAL, I’m not able to exploit this same methodology to assign ownership.

Now, to date, this has not been an issue. This is because, as far as I know, there haven’t been any sales of DIGITAL assets that were undertaken by an entity that was NOT the owner of the DIGITAL asset. I am, however, anticipating this to eventually change. That is, the league office will be selling DIGITAL assets that the clubs own.