Merge pull request #1703 from open-contracting/new-mel-doc-1.2

Merge changes from 1.1-dev into 1.2-dev

Author: jpmckinney

docs/examples/pre-qualification/multi-stage.csv

@@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ In either case:
 * Use `limit=NUMBER`, to limit the number of results returned on each page.
 * Include the total number of results across all pages.
 
-In addition to performance reasons, the seek method is preferred to the offset method when results are ordered in reverse chronology, because:
+In addition to performance reasons, the seek method is preferred to the offset method when results are ordered in reverse chronology, because, with the offset method:
 
 * A given page won't return the same results over time. `page=1` will return different results today, next week, and next year.
 * Users can receive duplicate results while paginating. For example, if a new release is published to page 1 while users are paginating, then the result at the bottom of each page will be moved to the top of the following page.

docs/guidance/build/hosting.md

@@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ The National Procurement Agency in Chile (Chile Compra) wants to establish a fra
 
 #### Invitation to participate in the first stage of a framework agreement procedure
 
-Chile Compra publishes a tender notice inviting suppliers to participate in the framework agreement. The tender notice specifies that multiple suppliers can join the framework agreement. The framework agreement is open, since all the framework agreements in Chile involve the setting up of a dynamic purchasing system. The framework agreement is for multiple buyers, since the tender notice specifies two contracting authorities. The tender notice describes two lots.
+Chile Compra publishes a tender notice inviting suppliers to participate in the framework agreement. The tender notice specifies that multiple suppliers can join the framework agreement. The framework agreement is open, since all the framework agreements in Chile involve the setting up of a dynamic purchasing system. The framework agreement is for multiple buyers, since the tender notice specifies two buyers. The tender notice describes two lots.
 
 The notice is modelled as an OCDS release with a `tag` of 'tender' and the following properties:
 

docs/guidance/map/framework_agreements.md

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ You can use the [field-level mapping template](https://www.open-contracting.org/
 
 To localize a field title or description, edit the values columns C or D. We recommend that you keep the original title or description in brackets after your localized version. For example:
 
-```{csv-table}
+```{csv-table-no-translate}
 :header-rows: 1
 :file: ../../examples/language_localization/localization.csv
 ```

docs/guidance/map/localization.md

@@ -8,10 +8,23 @@ In single-stage procedures, buyers or procuring entities invite potential suppli
 
 But, many jurisdictions also use multi-stage procedures. Such procedures follow a process like:
 
-```{csv-table}
-:header-rows: 1
-:file: ../../examples/pre-qualification/multi-stage.csv
+````{grid} 1 2 2 2
+:gutter: 2
+
+```{grid-item-card} First stage
+* The buyer or procuring entity issues an invitation to participate in the process
+* Potential suppliers submit expressions of interest
+* The buyer or procuring entity assesses the expressions of interest
+* The buyer or procuring entity establishes a list of qualified or selected potential suppliers
+```
+
+```{grid-item-card} Second stage
+* The buyer or procuring entity issues an invitation to bid to the potential suppliers on the list
+* Potential suppliers submit bids
+* The buyer or procuring entity evaluates the bids
+* The buyer or procuring entity awards a contract to the supplier(s)
 ```
+````
 
 This worked example describes 3 types of multi-stage procedure and explains how to model them in OCDS.
 

docs/guidance/map/pre-qualification.md

@@ -31,12 +31,13 @@ Understanding all of the challenges above, we understand that increasing the tra
 All OCDS publications ought to meet the following criteria:
 
 1. **Registered**: The data uses a [registered OCID prefix](../../schema/identifiers.md#open-contracting-process-identifier-ocid).
+1. **Reviewable**: The [OCDS Data Review Tool](https://review.standard.open-contracting.org/) can report results for the data.
+1. **Appropriate**: The data is in semantic accordance with OCDS. Additional fields and codes do not overlap semantically with standardized fields and codes.
+1. **Relevant**: The data answers "who bought what from whom, for how much, when, and how" for at least one contracting process.
 1. **Discoverable**: It is possible to discover the data by navigating a website whose homepage is indexed by popular web search engines.
-1. **Retrievable**: It is possible to automate the download of all the data, either using an HTML page listing bulk download URLs, or using only machine-readable data as input.
-1. **Reviewable**: The [OCDS Data Review Tool](https://review.standard.open-contracting.org/) is able to report results on the data.
-1. **Appropriate**: Concepts are published in semantic accordance with the rules of the OCDS (or registered extensions) rather than using a non-OCDS field or code.
-1. **Active**: For each publisher, there is an OCDS release with a top-level `date` field value within the last 12 months.
-1. **Parity**: For each publisher, for the _time period_ and _contracting authorities_ covered by the data, there isn't another dataset by the same publisher that covers more than 25% more contracting (or planning) processes.
+1. **Representative**: The data describes all contracting (or planning) processes within a relevant population. For example: all contracts for a public-private partnership; all above-threshold contracts since 2020 excluding those by state-owned enterprises, etc.
+1. **Active**: The data contains a contracting (or planning) process release with a top-level `date` value within the previous four calendar quarters.
+1. **Retrievable**: It is possible for software to download the data in full, either by using an HTML page listing bulk download URLs, or by using machine-readable data as the only input.
 
 The Data Support Team is happy to review draft and newly published OCDS data and can work with publishers with advice to meet the above criteria. A publication that does not meet this minimum threshold will not be listed as a publisher by OCP as part of [OCP's regular reporting](https://www.open-contracting.org/why-open-contracting/learning/).
 
@@ -48,30 +49,41 @@ From the minimum threshold above, we want to support publishers to continue to i
 
 Improvement on the below indicators demonstrate that the published information is becoming more complete about the contracting (or planning) processes within the publisher's jurisdiction.
 
-1. Publish subsequent releases per OCID to show how the contracting (or planning) process is progressing over time
-1. Increase the publication of historical information (based on a minimal set of date fields that appear across all sources, e.g. `tender.tenderPeriod`, `awards.date`, and `contracts.dateSigned`)
-1. Increase the average coverage of fields per compiled release, for example either new fields not previously published in any release, or an increase in the use of a field across releases (e.g. very little data was published about direct awards and now more is being published about direct awards)
-1. Increase the number of contracting authorities covered in the publication
-1. Increase the number of concepts covered relative to non-OCDS data
+1. Increase the number of indicators covered (volume)
+1. Increase the average number of fields covered per contracting (or planning) process (density)
+1. Increase the number of buyers covered ("who")
+1. Increase the number of methods covered ("how")
+1. Increase the temporal coverage into the past ("when")
 
-### Correctness
-
-Improvement on the below indicators demonstrates that the concepts are being published more correctly, improving usability.
+### Timeliness
 
-1. Decrease the types and number of structural errors reported by the OCDS Data Review Tool, e.g. moving from 20 types of errors, each occurring more than 100,000 times, to 10 types of errors, each occurring less than 100 times
-1. Decrease the average number of structural errors per release
-1. Decrease the number of instances in which a concept is not published in conformance with OCDS semantics
-1. Decrease the number of types of quality warnings using OCDS Pelican
-1. Decrease the average number of quality warnings per release using OCDS Pelican
+1. Publish multiple updates per contracting process
+1. Decrease the delay between the information's creation and publication
 
-### Access
+### Accessibility
 
 Improvements on the below indicators demonstrate that it is becoming easier for users to access the published information.
 
-1. Publish record packages containing compiled releases
-1. Decrease the number of HTTP errors
+1. Publish a user guide or publication policy that describes the scope, at minimum
+1. Publish API documentation that describes the endpoints and parameters, at minimum
 1. Increase the number of access methods (API endpoints, bulk downloads)
-1. Decrease the number of license restrictions
+1. Increase the number of data formats (JSON, Excel, CSV)
+1. Facilitate indirect data use (e.g. search, dashboards, etc.)
+
+### Retrievability and legal
+
+1. Decrease the number of HTTP errors
+1. Use a data license that conforms to the [Open Definition](https://opendefinition.org)
+
+### Correctness
+
+Improvement on the below indicators demonstrates that the concepts are being published more correctly, improving usability.
+
+1. Decrease the number of types of structural errors
+1. Decrease the average number of structural errors per contracting (or planning) process
+1. Decrease the number of [conformance](../../schema/conformance_and_extensions) issues
+1. Decrease the number of types of quality warnings
+1. Decrease the average number of quality warnings per contracting (or planning) process
 
 As publishers improve, the Data Support Team can work with them to identify how they can improve on the above criteria. OCP will note whether a publisher has improved in [OCP's regular reporting](https://www.open-contracting.org/why-open-contracting/learning/).
 

docs/guidance/publish/quality.md

@@ -50,7 +50,8 @@ Per the [normative and non-normative content and changes policy](../governance/n
     * [#1494](https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/1497) Add guidance on preparing test data to Check your data section.
   * Publish:
     * Merge Publication policy and Licensing pages into Publish page [#986](https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/986) [#1012](https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/1012).
-    * Replace guidance on publication levels [#980](https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/980) [#1013](https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/1013) [#1045](https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/1045).
+    * Replace publication levels guidance with data quality guidance [#980](https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/980) [#1013](https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/1013).
+    * Update data quality guidance to match [OCP Strategy 2024-2030](https://www.open-contracting.org/strategy-2024-2030/) [#1045](https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/1045) [#1697](https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/1697).
   * [#1427](https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/1427) Add guidance about recommended extensions.
   * Various minor improvements [#1051](https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/1051) [#1080](https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/1080) [#1083](https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/1083) [#1085](https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/1085) [#1091](https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/1091) [#1130](https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/1130) [#1227](https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/1227) [#1299](https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/1299) [#1337](https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/1337) [#1384](https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/1384).
 

docs/history/changelog.md

@@ -943,7 +943,7 @@ msgid ""
 "The framework agreement is open, since all the framework agreements in Chile"
 " involve the setting up of a dynamic purchasing system. The framework "
 "agreement is for multiple buyers, since the tender notice specifies two "
-"contracting authorities."
+"buyers."
 msgstr ""
 "Chile Compra publica un [aviso de "
 "licitación](https://www.mercadopublico.cl/Procurement/Modules/RFB/DetailsAcquisition.aspx?qs=TLr0Si6+0YXBLbyobaRgPQ==)"