opendatamanchester / open3p Goto Github PK

Need to add branding to the complete packaging csv. It needs to go AFTER householdWaste and BEFORE depositReturnScheme

The load catalogue and loads functionality is below the functionality of the other schemas and needs to be improved. They need constituents lists within the relationship lists area.

We should add componentContactWithProduct as a Boolean/bit field to Complete Packaging Constituents relationship list and remove it from the Complete Packaging schema. It add no value in the Complete Packaging schema

During the composting expert review it was noted that the Recycling Disruptor field was "recycling centric". When the intended end of life route(s) is declared then it would then just be a disruptor for that. For example - degradable/ compostable wouldn't be a disruptor if the projected end of life route was composting.

In theory this would aid in the helping of thinking about end of life of packaging.

https://opendatamanchester.github.io/PPP/1.1-alpha/1_Start_Here/1_2_Key_Concepts/

JSON and CSV examples are written in previous version of the standard
http://standard.open3p.org/2.0/3_Data_Specification/3_5_Multipack/

https://opendatamanchester.github.io/PPP/1.1-alpha/3_Data_Specification/3_1_Base_Materials/

in the MaterialChemCID Notes

Currently it says
The standard is open and free to use, copy and distribute. However, the standard is protected by the Apache License, Version 2.0{target=_blank} so you must use the correct attribution and licence.

Change it to say
The standard is open and free to use, copy and distribute. However, the standard is (C) Open Data Manchester CIC 2021-2023 and made available through the Apache License, Version 2.0 so you must use the correct attribution and licence.

The Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council has been brought up a couple of times in the expert review when talking about "components in contact with product".

Especially around the idea of direct and indirect contact

https://opendatamanchester.github.io/PPP/1.1-alpha/3_Data_Specification/3_2_Materials/#materials

JSON and CSV examples are written in previous version of the standard
http://standard.open3p.org/2.0/3_Data_Specification/3_6_Load_Catalogue/

https://standard.open3p.org/1.1-alpha/7_Supporting_Files/7_2_Example_Files/

https://standard.open3p.org/1.1-alpha/6_Relationship_Lists/6_008_Complete_Packaging_End_of_Life_Routes/

and

https://standard.open3p.org/1.1-alpha/6_Relationship_Lists/6_007_Component_End_of_Life_Routes/

4th row in the table link text says "component recycling disruptors controlled list" but should probably be "component disruptors controlled list

Have we thought about how to ensure uniqueness of identifiers? If managed through the 'portal', then I guess that will do it, but is there an expectation that there may be other suppliers providing software that adheres to the standard, and if so - how do we ensure these things are globally unique?

There is a banner that states "Open 3P is a data standard for packaging. It currently covers plastic and is being extended to the whole packing industry." This needs to be removed as v2.0 is now for all packaging.

We need to add the licence to the home page of the standard and not only to the licence page of the github repo

https://standard.open3p.org/1.1-alpha/3_Data_Specification/3_3_Components/

Currently we have a "does this [[item]] have a recyclability accreditation" than a "where is this accreditation from" but it was pointed out in the plastic expert review that we should look at including the different accreditations' banding. With OPRL it's binary, where as others are Red/Amber/Green and others still are on a A-F banding.

On the page below, we should remove the line "PPP has 5 main aims which will be delivered by 30th November 2022", and replace with something like "PPP's 5 main aims were to:"

https://opendatamanchester.github.io/PPP/1.1-alpha/1_Start_Here/1_1_Introduction/#what-is-the-open-3p

There is no area within the standard to attach manufacturers against the various specifications. This needs to be added asap.

github org-ids

website org-ids

The 5_3_3_Complete_Packaging_Recycling_Disruptors.csv has incorrect data in it

Are there any examples of packaging being a liquid or a gas?

Is the nitrogen gas used to protect crisps from going stale and from breaking in transit packaging?
Is the liquid oil used to stop lithium (and other alkali metals) reacting with oxygen packaging?

Is silica gel packaging? This goes from solid to "gel" in the presence of moisture.

Does physical form matter?

In the fibre based composite expert review session it was mentioned that we might want to include and "Recycling Information/ Call to Action field" at the complete packaging level to inform end users of what to do with the complete packaging for recycling. Examples included:

• separate the plastic layer from the cardboard (though this means it wouldn't be FBC)
• keep lid and carton together
• remove lid

This might need to include a geography level to show that the UK want the lid and carton together, whereas Stockholm want the lid removed.

Update Excel Workbook and .csv files

Some comments on the excel spreadsheet:

1. I think that users will head for the spreadsheet because it's likely to be the thing that's most familiar to them, so could we get some example data in there?
2. How are the relationship lists accounted for in the excel spreadsheet?
3. On the demo in the workshops, we had some fields with multiple items in them, and some where multiple items spread across multiple rows - what's the reason for this?

There are several (many?) fields where multiple values are accepted. We should be clear about how these should be recorded

Introduction

• For consistency, we may want to rephrase in this section where we say ‘open data standard’ and instead use the term ‘open standard for packaging data’.

Key concepts

• Should these be updated to reflect the end of life routes we now cover? Not just reuse and recycle?

Data flow

• This whole section still uses the ‘component catalogue’ terminology and needs updating – as does the diagrams.

Data formats

• Text is out of date – shouldn’t say ‘plastic packaging portal’, probably should be ‘Open 3P’

Components

• Just flagging the recycled content description here after our WRAP call – I think we do need to update this as it is specific about plastic here.

Complete Packaging

• Delete the word catalogue from here I think

Load Catalogue

• We say ‘tertiary’ here but that isn’t the word we use in the controlled list.

Load

• We say ‘tertiary’ here but that isn’t the word we use in the controlled list.

Controlled lists – certificate source

• I think we should add some text on this to say that if there are important industry certification sources not included please contact us to recommend their addition.

While looking into the standard and mapping them to a real world example we need to remap how materials and components map. The current state has it that the material schema contains the identifier of the component. This should be reversed so that the component contains a list of the various materials including to create the component. I have included the images below to what the current state is and the proposed future state.

Figure 1 - Current state

Figure 2 - Proposed state

Should the fields that we expect to be many to many, (example certificationSource - because it might be FSA AND a REACH certificate) be a plural (certificationSources) and the format a LIST?

@Julianlstar @northernjamie I think the data formats page needs a complete overhaul.

Originally posted by @DsposalTom in #62 (comment)

The 4th column of the 2nd row in this table: https://standard.open3p.org/1.1-alpha/6_Relationship_Lists/6_007_Component_End_of_Life_Routes/ has a typo - "What is the entended provided the certificate?" I suspect that this should be something like "what is the intended end of life route for this component?"

https://github.com/OpenDataManchester/PPP/blob/main/docs/6_Controlled_Lists/6_1_1_Shape.csv

Should we add Open 3P branding to the mkdocs?

Can we validate the 'tier' terminology with users (https://github.com/OpenDataManchester/PPP/blob/main/docs/4_Data_Specification/4_5_Multipack.md) doesn't feel right to me, but happy to be proved wrong..!

There are times when components CANNOT be physically removed from others, and other times when they can. This should be including within the data standard

Can you get some content for the governance page. @Julianlstar I'm happy to markdown stuff if you have the content. It doesn't have to be much at the moment we only have

Description of the governance arrangements for the standard, To be agreed.

and I know we are on from that.

JSON and CSV examples are written in previous version of the standard
http://standard.open3p.org/2.0/3_Data_Specification/3_7_Load/

JSON and CSV examples are written in previous version of the standard
http://standard.open3p.org/2.0/3_Data_Specification/3_4_Complete_Packaging/

JSON and CSV examples are written in previous version of the standard
http://standard.open3p.org/2.0/3_Data_Specification/3_3_Components/

Can we check in on the required fields - there are a lot of them - just want to make sure they are really required, or whether we should have required, recommended and optionals.

Volume: cubic metre (m3)
3_4_Complete_Packaging

(can't change these myself right now as github is partially down)

https://standard.open3p.org/1.1-alpha/6_Relationship_Lists/6_007_Component_End_of_Life_Routes/

componentDistruptors should be componentDisruptors

https://standard.open3p.org/1.1-alpha/6_Relationship_Lists/6_008_Complete_Packaging_End_of_Life_Routes/

completePackagingDistruptors should be completePackagingDisruptors

In Materials data specification there is a reference to Material function controlled list but this is not in the controlled list section. Should it be Material Purpose or do we need to create a new controlled list?

What is the reasoning behind having 'Food', 'Medicinal', and 'NA'. Does NA mean not applicable? In which case should this not be 'Other' rather than 'NA'? Or 'none'? Or both?

https://github.com/OpenDataManchester/PPP/blob/main/docs/5_Controlled_Lists/5_3_1_Product_Type.csv

What about multiple colours and/or decorative colours?

In the material schema, should the materialWeight field be replaces with materialRatio?

https://opendatamanchester.github.io/PPP/1.1-alpha/3_Data_Specification/3_1_Base_Materials/

attritubes -> attributes
contolled_lists -> controlled_lists