[Proposal] Register the Hazard Data Package as a proper profile

[ldodds]

What is the context or reason for the change?

The Hazard Data Package uses a profile attribute to declare that a data package conforms to the specification we have defined. In the initial draft, this uses a fixed value of hazard-data-package

The documentation for the profile attribute in the data package specification says that custom profiles must have this property and that:

This unique identifier MUST be a string and can be in one of two forms.
It can be an id from the official Data Package Schema Registry, or, a fully-qualified URL that points directly to a JSON Schema that can be used to validate the profile.

What is your proposed change?

We should either register the profile in the official registry OR change the value we are using to instead refer to the draft JSON schema.

It's not clear what is involved in registering a new profile, but opening a pull request for a change to this file might be sufficient.

Suggest doing that when we have a stable draft of both the specification and JSON schema that we want others to use.

[matamadio]

I think this is superceeded, but not sure if understood correctly.

[stufraser1]

Creating a data package remains an option for future.
As of May 2023, we are providing general guidance on how to create the dataset and describe using RDLS metadata.
We don't provide a fixed hazard data package template which instructs users on how to prepare hazard data.
If we had a fixed data package then all data we receive must be converted to this data package. This may be too stringent.

[stufraser1]

I think this is superceded, but not sure if understood correctly.

@odscrachel @odscjen @duncandewhurst is this superceded or something we should still do?

[odscjen]

I think this has been superseded now