This project is archived. Its data is
read-only
.
This project is
read-only
.
Changes
Page history
clarifications and questions
authored
Jul 05, 2016
by
Gualter
Show whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
tech-specs.md
View page @
334c0891
...
...
@@ -6,21 +6,22 @@ these could be taxonomies?
these should be external community generated ontologies?
we should at least check for differences...
country:
Fields from the data-feed: Country Name 1,2,3, ISO country code A2, A3, Group, Year (
year of what?
)
Fields from the data-feed: Country Name 1,2,3, ISO country code A2, A3, Group, Year (
of the data/indicator value; AFAIK can be multiple
)
Other Fields: lat/lng bounding rectangle
indicator:
Fields from the data-feed: Code, Pillar, Category, Name, Period, Source, Observations
Name e.g. Cereal production (% of world production)
pillars:
Fields from the data-feed: Pillar
e.g. Commercialization
Fields from the data-feed: Pillar
indicator_category:
Fields from the data-feed: Category
e.g. Industrial Production And Manipulation
Fields from the data-feed: Category
indicator_source:
Fields from the data-feed: Source
e.g. FAOSTAT
Fields from the data-feed: Source
---------------------------- Data Nodes:
the data feed needs normalisation. that is, each indicator value should be a separate node
the data feed has one row per country containing all the data-points in the columns
data:
Fields from the data-feed: Country, [NO: Group is duplication here], Year (Year of data point i think), Code, Value
Should each indicator value be a separate node, or rather each indicator, with multiple value fields e.g. for the year?
\ No newline at end of file