apiExtension packageMetadata in compiledRelease

[yolile]

When two or more releases from differents publishers are compiled in a compiledRelease how could the meta information from both publishers be included in the compiledRelease? Maybe the packageMetadata should be an array instead of an object?

[jpmckinney]

Related to this tag: https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/labels/Focus%20-%20Publishing

[yolile]

@jpmckinney Honduras goverment is going to publish information from two differents publishers, and then another entity is going to generate and publish the compile release. is it better to create a new extension with the publisher field as an array or update this one?

[duncandewhurst]

@yolile see comments from @jpmckinney in open-contracting-archive/api-specification#15

[jpmckinney]

There are many ways we can possibly do this.

Using just core OCDS, you can do: The publisher of the record package is the entity that generates the compiled release. The packages of the record package links to the release packages of the other two publishers; those release packages have publisher set to those publishers.

For OCDS 1.2, I'm thinking that publisher should be a field on the release, not on the package (see open-contracting/standard#325 (comment)), which will also resolve this issue. The semantics for publisher on the compiled release might be that it's whoever publishes the compiled release, instead of following the regular merge rules (relevant to open-contracting/standard#330).

As for the API extension, I think there are issues with it. I don't think we should recommend it here. As in the comment Duncan linked to, most of the package metadata makes no sense at the release-level.

So, for Honduras, I think the best option is to just use core OCDS as described above.

[jpmckinney]

Closing in favor of open issues on other repos.