Exceptions to immutability

[jpmckinney]

From https://github.com/openownership/data-standard/discussions/475#discussioncomment-7106304

tiredpixel: how can something like a clerical error be distinguished from an actual change?

@jpmckinney: This can be handled in different ways, depending on user needs.

As you suggest, the simplest is to just change the original data. This breaks immutability – but, honestly, unless there are very strong use cases for preserving immutability, then it is so much simpler (for both users and publishers) to allow clerical errors as an exception to immutability.

Another option: Today's procurement systems follow the same structure as their original paper processes. So, a notice is published, containing a clerical error. Being a physical paper posted on notice boards and distributed to offices, it's not possible to simply change it. As such, the EU, for example, publishes a special type of notice ("Corrigendum", or "Change" more recently) with such changes. Publishers are not allowed to make non-clerical changes via such notices. In BODS, perhaps a new field on a statement would serve as a flag, like "correction": true.

@kd-ods: Yes - we will need to treat certain types of correction and post-hoc redaction as special cases. So we will be outlining in future versions of the standard the circumstances under which statements need not be immutable.

Emphasis added. Opening the issue as otherwise this intention for future BODS versions is untracked.