tech-specs.md

@@ -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
+  Fields from the data-feed: Country, [NO: Group is duplication here], Year (Year of data point i think), Code, Value
\ No newline at end of file
+
+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