Consider adding related-bodies/related-agencies to schema

[todrobbins]

To make the data set more useful, I think adding a field to the schema for related bodies/agencies would be very useful. Perhaps the field is populated by the values key field.

Thoughts?

[rufuspollock]

I guess this is something beyond the current "parent" field? (I need to write a better description of those fields!)

[todrobbins]

Ah. The parent field is pretty useful, though limited in that a direct relationship would be necessary for associating bodies. I await your explication of the fields. 👯

[davidread]

To be honest, we've found government is pretty hierarchical. There are clear lines of responsibility. I've not seen any scope for multiple relationships.

The main problem we've had with a hierarchy is that sometimes the child wants to be seen independent of the parent. e.g. Office for National Statistics technically reports to parliament via UKSA, but are fiercely independent of parliament meddling, so would refuse to have any connection drawn. Similar for e.g. the Hillsborough Review, having been being set-up by the Home Office. All the hundreds of quangos are keen to show they work without influence, but can be clearly sat under a department in the hierarchy.

So perhaps defining 'parent' as 'X reports to parliament or receives the largest share of its public money via body Y'.

[rufuspollock]

WONTFIX.

@davidread this is super useful. I think we'll keep with the single parent setup we have atm.

@trobbins pls re-open if this needs further discussion :-)