Open fgregg opened 7 years ago
Why not have jurisdiction_id
and division_id
attributes, and the code will determine the 'scope' based on those values?
I think that's what the implementation would look like, but in general in favor of the idea.
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:17 PM, James McKinney notifications@github.com wrote:
Why not have jurisdiction_id and division_id attributes, and the code will determine the 'scope' based on those values?
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/opencivicdata/docs.opencivicdata.org/issues/84#issuecomment-287208055, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAfYp_00wXz1qTgLBO1G6BSZM9l-ixTks5rmbUNgaJpZM4Mf8pX .
Okay. Does this require an OCDEP?
I am down with this. I can make changes to the elections spec and my drafts of those models in python-opencivicdata-django once this is decided.
Right now, the
Event
model in opencivicdata-django requires ajurisdiction
attribute.This is so that all events related to particular legislature can be easily grouped together.
However, not all the things that we want to model within the wider OCD world have jurisdictions, i.e, Election days.
I would like to propose that OCD Events have an
scope
attribute that can be ajurisdiction_id
,division_id
orNone
.This would allow for current pupa practice to be largely unchanged, but also allow for events that are not associated with jurisdictions.
I don't love the name
scope
.Thoughts? @jamesturk @gordonje @jpmckinney