figure out good way to handle two positions in the same jurisdiction (data-dot bug 3) about legacy-opencivicdata.org HOT 9 CLOSED

Yeah, so this is a WI blocker.

from legacy-opencivicdata.org.

Potential ideas; using the label syntax (Role (clerk)) to be explicit, not unlike having multiple memberships in pupa raw.

from legacy-opencivicdata.org.

Allowing it implicitly seems like a recipe for bad data.

from legacy-opencivicdata.org.

Perhaps replace the Role / District split with a Role (district). That's actually a bit more interesting, and it'll map to role / label on the membership.

from legacy-opencivicdata.org.

I don't think the district is usually the label on a membership is it?

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Paul Tagliamonte [email protected]
wrote:

Perhaps replace the Role / District split with a Role (district). That's
actually a bit more interesting, and it'll map to role / label on the
membership.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#5 (comment)
.

from legacy-opencivicdata.org.

Hurm, you're right, I think we usually set role to the same as label. I think I mean post. Let me double check if what I'm thinking makes sense

from legacy-opencivicdata.org.

Right, got pretty into implementing that, turns out to be a bad idea, since you'd need a column per person.

Next idea is a Position (1), District (1) fallback (allowing for N alternative positions, strictly paired).

Really not the greatest, but we've got tons of these. We'll throw out the bit in the parens (since the useful data is the value)

from legacy-opencivicdata.org.

Sounds good, I assume we can make the (1) optional for the first one?

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Paul Tagliamonte [email protected]
wrote:

Right, got pretty into implementing that, turns out to be a bad idea,
since you'd need a column per person.

Next idea is a Position (1), District (1) fallback (allowing for N
alternative positions, strictly paired).

Really not the greatest, but we've got tons of these. We'll throw out the
bit in the parens (since the useful data is the value)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#5 (comment)
.

from legacy-opencivicdata.org.

absolutely

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:00 PM, James Turk [email protected] wrote:

Sounds good, I assume we can make the (1) optional for the first one?

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Paul Tagliamonte [email protected]

wrote:

Right, got pretty into implementing that, turns out to be a bad idea,
since you'd need a column per person.

Next idea is a Position (1), District (1) fallback (allowing for N
alternative positions, strictly paired).

Really not the greatest, but we've got tons of these. We'll throw out
the
bit in the parens (since the useful data is the value)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
<
https://github.com/opencivicdata/opencivicdata.org/issues/5#issuecomment-54373992>

.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#5 (comment)
.

Paul Tagliamonte
Software Developer | Sunlight Foundation

from legacy-opencivicdata.org.