Prioritize entries in the schema

[atkissoncj]

Should we put in order or priority, mark priority, or otherwise prioritize entries in the schema? I know that what people put in will largely be dependent on what they can find in the time they allocate to the task, but maybe some simple nudges would help people spend a minimum of additional effort to gather the most important data.

[ShaneCurcuru]

It depends on what's most useful for researchers who want to use this to categorize by, I think?

As a practical matter, prioritizing data fields that can more easily be quantified and verified (i.e. by including a URL to the board listing page, that shows the number of directors) is where I'd tend to start.

But you do make me realize we need better support for editing/updating/adding new organizations. A minimum must have verified data list of fields, and perhaps some better focused recommendations on how to verify data by including links or describing how people are expected to have verified data.

[ShaneCurcuru]

Proposed tooling addition: simplistic data quality score for each foundation entry.

• Add "category" field to _data/foundations-schema.json, which can also help inform assets/ruby/schema_utils.rb generators, to bucket the different kinds of fields stored.
• Add "categoryWeight" field or similar to show the relative importance of different categories.
• Build data scanner to create a "% of data fields filled in / data quality" score for each foundation document, by checking how many fields are filled in, and adding some sort of scoring number.

This could be displayed in a section on foundation pages/listings as a hint for newcomers and researchers which foundation listings need more fields filled in.