figure out good way to handle two positions in the same jurisdiction (data-dot bug 3)
paultag opened this issue · comments
Yeah, so this is a WI blocker.
Potential ideas; using the label syntax (Role (clerk)) to be explicit, not unlike having multiple memberships in pupa raw.
Allowing it implicitly seems like a recipe for bad data.
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.
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 notifications@github.com
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)
.
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
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)
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 notifications@github.com
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)
.
absolutely
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:00 PM, James Turk notifications@github.com 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 notifications@github.com
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