Key Concepts and Data Model

[rufuspollock]

Data Model

• Actor
  • countries (e.g. France, Saudi Arabia, China - we have a dictionary for this)
  • negotiating groups (e.g. G77 and China, AOSIS, - we have a dictionary for this)
• Document - the ENB published documents
  • Date, Title
  • => event (each document is only ever associated with one event)
  • URL on the ENB website
• Event
  • Date (generally the month and the year are enough to distinguish an event)
  • Place (the city where the meeting took place)
• Sections - essentially correspond to the meeting of a particular track during an event (e.g. the meeting of SBI in Bonn in june 2014) or to a particular reporting bit on an event (e.g. the analysis of one day or the feelings in the corridors)
  • Tracks (generally 1, but there may joint meetings such as SBSTA + SBI )
  • Reporting Format (1)
  • Document - note we may inline certain document and document->event properties e.g.
  • Date
  • Place (of meeting)
• Text chunks - essentially correspond to a particular discussion during a session at an event
  • Section (1)
  • Actors (0 ≤ actors ≥ as many as mentioned)
  • Topics (0 ≤ actors ≥ 3 most prominent)

Classifications:

• Type - aka Negotiation Track
• Subtype - aka Reporting Formats
• Topics (e.g. Forest, Mitigation, Adaptation) For reference existing CSV "database" on the climatenegotiations.org site has:

id,title,actors,countries,topics,url,event_id,track,format,date,year,fulltext

Enumerations

Type (negotiation tracks)

• COP
• IPCC
• SBI
• SBI/SBSTA (these are joint meeting, it may be more intelligent to tag them with both SBI and SBSTA)
• SBSTA
• Special workshop
• Working groups
  • BUT is may be better to separate the different working groups
• undeducible
• blank

Subtypes (reporting formats)

• Agenda
• Analysis
• Corridors
• History
• Groups (contact groups, informal groups, non-groups...)
• Plenary
• undeducible
• blank

[rufuspollock]

@tommv i've refined this a bit. Does it make sense - e.g. the Meeting / Event concept. What attributes do we have re meetings / events (cf #1)

[tommv]

Yes it makes perfect sense. I corrected a few details, but not much. Most important edits I made are:

• Removed "Participants" there may be way to get this but not in the data we have so far
• Distinguished "Sections" (larger) from "Text chunck" (smaller) (cfr. #13 )
• Added the possibility of multiple tag of "tracks" for "sections" (to handled joint meeting)