Justification just-0017
- Needs
- data-need-002
- Satisfaction
- full
- Confidence
- high
- Status
- proposed
The current rule requires a name field on every dataset, giving services a
consistent display label. This matters when planning decisions rely on human
judgement and discussion rather than long identifiers.
The rule is too broad at present. Datasets representing a user-recognisable
entity or document should provide a human-readable name. Relationship and event
datasets should normally derive their display label from referenced records or
controlled values, rather than storing a duplicate name field.
For example, a planning condition name lets services present conditions clearly instead of relying on codes alone, and a site name lets planners refer to the site in discussions and reports with less ambiguity. Conversely, a decision-condition record should normally display the name of its referenced planning condition, and a timeline record should display the controlled process event and its date.
The rule should be refined to express this distinction between a stored name
and a derived display label. Until then, it records a useful design intention,
but should not be read as requiring an artificial name field on every
dataset.
Satisfied by:
Rule:
{
"applies_to": "dataset",
"requires": [
{
"field": "name"
}
]
}
Help improve this specification
To help keep this justification useful and up to date, you can: