yolile
commented
3 years ago In the meantime, we can start a worked example to promote good practice with respect to the fields that are already in the standard. We can also review the extension for inclusion in the registry, in which case we can made it part of the example.
The item attributes extension is already part of the registry https://extensions.open-contracting.org/en/extensions/itemAttributes/master/
As well as the medicine extension https://extensions.open-contracting.org/en/extensions/medicine/master/
In Paraguay (DNCP) they are carrying out some initiatives to create and publish some standardized templates for specific items that can be reused and to make the items the most comparable as possible. Currently, they are finishing the standardization of attributes for hardware products. They will disclose the templates as a separate dataset and then, disclose the information in OCDS using the attributes extension. The attributes extension fits better here as there may be a lot of different types of products to standardize and each of them will have different types of attributes. cc @micayael
jpmckinney
We have heard from several users that the information disclosed about items is insufficient for their analysis.
Right now, the standardized details that can be provided are classification, quantity, and unit. However, for medicine, for example, the classification might indicate the drug (via a UNSPSC code), but the dosage (1mg, 10mg, etc.) and form (liquid, tablet, etc.) are also relevant.
In terms of standard development, we can either standardize new fields, or recommend the use of an extension like in #751, which allows for user-defined additional attributes for items.
In the meantime, we can start a worked example to promote good practice with respect to the fields that are already in the standard. We can also review the extension for inclusion in the registry, in which case we can made it part of the example.
cc @Camilamila