Person.identifier was added in #427 in pursuit of alignment with the OCDS Beneficial Owners extension. However, we omitted adding a disclaimer like the one in the extension documentation:
to use this extension, the laws in your jurisdiction must permit the publication of personal identifiers.
I think that we should add a similar disclaimer to the reference documentation for the Person subschema.
To reduce the chances of implementers unnecessarily publishing personal identifiers, I think that we should also include a clarification that Person.identifer is only relevant in the context of Organization.beneficialOwners (the Person subschema also appears in the context of Organization.people, relating to the CoST IDS element 'Contract officials and roles', for which personal identifiers are not relevant).
At the same time, we can update the changelog entry for #427, which presently only mentions Organization.beneficialOwners, to include Person.identifier and the other fields added to the Person subschema.
@jpmckinney sound good?
Person.identifierwas added in #427 in pursuit of alignment with the OCDS Beneficial Owners extension. However, we omitted adding a disclaimer like the one in the extension documentation:I think that we should add a similar disclaimer to the reference documentation for the
Personsubschema.To reduce the chances of implementers unnecessarily publishing personal identifiers, I think that we should also include a clarification that
Person.identiferis only relevant in the context ofOrganization.beneficialOwners(thePersonsubschema also appears in the context ofOrganization.people, relating to the CoST IDS element 'Contract officials and roles', for which personal identifiers are not relevant).At the same time, we can update the changelog entry for #427, which presently only mentions
Organization.beneficialOwners, to includePerson.identifierand the other fields added to thePersonsubschema.@jpmckinney sound good?