Taxonomy and term identifier, label and URI

[MikeThacker1]

Sorry I didn't pick this up earlier, but taxonomy_term in HSDS 2.0 does not make provision for separate identifiers, labels and URIs for taxonomies or taxonomy terms.

As I understand it, "id" is an identifier within the "dataset" of services, not within the taxonomy.

As an example in the UK we might reference:

• services taxonomy URI: http://id.esd.org.uk/list/services
• services taxonomy label: "All services"
• services taxonomy identifier: "services"
• service taxonomy term URI: http://id.esd.org.uk/service/242
• services taxonomy term identifier: 242
• services taxonomy term label: "Care at home"

The reference page says for taxonomy "If possible, provide a URI". I'm wondering about the case for combining label and URI in one field - hence requiring someone to go to the URI (if one is given) to get the taxonomy label.

[devinbalkind]

I've been confused about taxonomy_terms in HSDS 2.0 as well.

I was hoping to use that table for both service categories as well as service eligibility. Maybe even organization taxonomies too. But it doesn't seem that's supported.

I also think that there is value in having a table for taxonomies that can define various taxonomies (ex. open eligibility, AIRS, system) and link them to taxonomy terms, which might accommodate the user case Mike is describing here.

[MikeThacker1]

I think the "link_type" field in other_attribute can be made "organization" to associate taxonomy terms with organizations.

The Classifications page other_attributes example illustrates the approach with a link_type of "program".

There is a question as to how we represent eligibility: in service_attribute referencing a taxonomy term that clearly defines a type of eligibility OR in other_attribute with an appropriate link_type.

Also @devinbalkind when we discuss this I think we should also consider your point on locally defined attributes. If I understood you correctly, the addition of an optional "value" field to other_taxonomy might address that.

[mrshll1001]

Closing as I believe this has been addressed in 3.0, please check the taxonomy_term model and reopen the issue if you think more work is needed.