# 3.0 Schema review questions remaining **URL:** \ **Category:** Technical\ **Created:** [November 10, 2022, 12:47pm UTC](https://forum.openreferral.org/t/3-0-schema-review-questions-remaining/274 "2022-11-10T12:47:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![davidraznick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@davidraznick](https://forum.openreferral.org/u/davidraznick)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2022, 12:47pm UTC](https://forum.openreferral.org/t/3-0-schema-review-questions-remaining/274/1 "2022-11-10T12:47:03Z")
Here is a list of the schema review questions remaining from the [schema spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ew5aKgVAwEcFVR9H7FG-Z6ybJkeY4U8VM_IHN3u1cG4/edit#gid=790284151). * * * Table - `organization` Field - currently called `uri` We need to decide name for this, as the comments say this should be named website but we already have field named website. Shall we keep it as `uri`? * * * Table - `organization` Fields - `tax_status` and `tax_id` Are you sure we want to remove `tax_status` and `tax_id`? or shall we deprecate them? * * * Table - `organization` Field - `id` (and `oranization_id` in other tables) Currently this is set as an `uuid` in 2.0 shall we remove the uuid requirement to make it the same as all the other id fields? * * * Table - `service` Fields - `wait_time` and `fees` Are you sure we want to remove `wait_time` and `fees`? or shall we deprecate them? * * * Table - `location` Field - `location_type` I think this should be removed as we only need `address.address_type`? * * * Table - `required_document` Shall we add a `uri` field to point to the doucment? What shall we call this field? ---
**Author:** ![devin](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.openreferral.org/devin/32/16_2.png) [@devin](https://forum.openreferral.org/u/devin)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2022, 6:58pm UTC](https://forum.openreferral.org/t/3-0-schema-review-questions-remaining/274/2 "2022-11-13T18:58:08Z")
Great list! Thanks so much for this. The following are simply my opinions. I hope others comment as well on this thread and we get these resolved. organization.uri: yes I think it should be named uri organization.tax\_status and tax\_id: yes I think deprecated organization.id: yes I think it should be the same as the other fields service.wait\_time and fees: yes I think deprecated location.location\_type: I think location\_type is there to signal whether the address is physical or virtual, and address\_type is to define whether the address is a physical office people can visit or just a postal address – so I think we need both. required\_document: should have a uri that could be called “link” or “path”. ---
**Author:** ![davidraznick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@davidraznick](https://forum.openreferral.org/u/davidraznick)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2022, 12:56pm UTC](https://forum.openreferral.org/t/3-0-schema-review-questions-remaining/274/3 "2022-11-16T12:56:02Z")
@devin Thanks for the feedback. I will provisionally change the schemas to do what you suggest. Also I forgot * * * Table - `service` Field - `licences` Shall we deprecate this and not remove? * * * provisionally I will just deprecate this field as well ---
**Author:** ![skyleryoung](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.openreferral.org/skyleryoung/32/212_2.png) [@skyleryoung](https://forum.openreferral.org/u/skyleryoung)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2022, 7:26pm UTC](https://forum.openreferral.org/t/3-0-schema-review-questions-remaining/274/4 "2022-11-16T19:26:42Z")
Devin’s points reflect my own assumptions and opinions as well. To emphasize a few key points: 1. In general, I’m in favor of deprecation over deletion. 2. I confirm that `location_type` exists primarily to delineate virtual locations. 3. I think adding `required_document.uri` is a good idea. Heuristically, I’m in favor of simply calling it “uri” as that naming convention already exists. However, it’s not a major issue either way. ---
**Author:** ![devin](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.openreferral.org/devin/32/16_2.png) [@devin](https://forum.openreferral.org/u/devin)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2022, 8:38pm UTC](https://forum.openreferral.org/t/3-0-schema-review-questions-remaining/274/5 "2022-11-21T20:38:39Z")
Happy to hear this. And yes I agree that we should default to deprecate and not remove and URI is fine with me for the document\_required field name. ---
**Author:** ![SarahP](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@SarahP](https://forum.openreferral.org/u/SarahP)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2022, 6:47pm UTC](https://forum.openreferral.org/t/3-0-schema-review-questions-remaining/274/6 "2022-12-05T18:47:36Z")
I think I’m following and agree with what has been suggested so far. ---
**Author:** ![rgparkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7c8e57/32.png) [@rgparkins](https://forum.openreferral.org/u/rgparkins)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2023, 12:45pm UTC](https://forum.openreferral.org/t/3-0-schema-review-questions-remaining/274/7 "2023-07-06T12:45:03Z")
I think this is a great shout. We are currently using link\_taxonomy tables to identify whether services have an address, are online , telephone services etc so have a location type would be a welcome addition @MikeThacker-iStandUK I think that we would be looking to ask for this from a DfE perspective ---
**Author:** ![MikeThacker-iStandUK](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.openreferral.org/mikethacker-istanduk/32/8_2.png) [@MikeThacker-iStandUK](https://forum.openreferral.org/u/MikeThacker-iStandUK)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2023, 2:40pm UTC](https://forum.openreferral.org/t/3-0-schema-review-questions-remaining/274/8 "2023-07-06T14:40:16Z")
Thanks @rgparkins. I see that location.location\_type is not in the current DRAFT UK profile - probably because it was proposed after the initial profile fields were drafted. It would be good to run the UK profile by you (as well as others) before it is finalised. I was hoping that DfE requirements would be a subset of the UK profile rather than adding extra fields, but we need to see if that would work. ---
**Author:** ![rgparkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7c8e57/32.png) [@rgparkins](https://forum.openreferral.org/u/rgparkins)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2023, 2:54pm UTC](https://forum.openreferral.org/t/3-0-schema-review-questions-remaining/274/9 "2023-07-06T14:54:25Z")
Thanks @MikeThacker-iStandUK let me know when is convenient, I can invite our other TA as well who has been more into the detail of our schema