Subsector further clarity needed

[odscrachel]

In our mapping guidance subsector from IDS is mapped to additionalClassifications and is described as 'Develop a subset for each sector e.g. Transport could be subdivided into national highway, local road, railway, port, airport etc. ' Whereas the schema browser describes additionalClassifications as 'One or more additional project classifications can be provided to describe the social or economic focus of the project.'.
This seems confusing. Especially when sector is already made up of [sector].[subsector]

[jpmckinney]

You're looking at the "from OCDS" page, but maybe it's clearer on the "from IDS" page? https://standard.open-contracting.org/infrastructure/latest/en/cost/?#identification

[odscrachel]

Ah yes, I added the wrong link, but the issue still stands.

[jpmckinney]

Hmm, yes, I suppose we need to change the guidance to be to add a .suffix to sector rather than use additionalClassifications. What do you think, @duncandewhurst ? (Also, welcome back!)

It might be a bit tricky to word clearly (e.g. if the sector isn't present in the open codelist).

[duncandewhurst]

Good spot @odscrachel. I agree with @jpmckinney's suggestion (and thanks, it's good to be back!)

I think we should also:

• Keep the reference to additionalClassifications in the mapping for Sector, in case implementers want to also publish their own classifications in addition to mapping to the sector codelist.
• Update the description of additionalClassifications to mention sector classifications.