The CHS system uses a DocType of RESOLUTIONS for all resolution, There is a list of contained resolutions, (e.g. a RESOLUTION may contain a RES01 and RES02) however there is no way of matching this up with a resolution in CHD.
Therefore if someone were to look for a RES01 on 01/01/2015 there could be multiple matches.
What is the rational for grouping this data together and giving a group DocType type rather than a specific one?
Is there any chance of providing (or does there exist) a “flag” to show the “Master Resolution type” i.e. the one that matches to the CHD equivalent?
Technically resolutions are individually filed documents, but as they are sometimes filed on the same piece of paper we have historically grouped them together on our output services such as CHD, arbitrarily choosing one of the specific resolution types as the parent filing type.
As part of CHS design we chose to continue with this grouping but rather than some arbitrary selection of the parent we grouped the resolutions under a filing type of RESOLUTION, more technically correct.
Given the feedback we have received on this topic we are looking to change the approach to separate out resolutions into the individual filings, although this would result in the same image being available multiple times where multiple resolutions are filed on a single document.
The issue, for us anyway, isn’t so much the document as the inability (within the current system) to see which resolutions are grouped together in a formal way.
At present we have to make some assumptions which are almost certainly not 100% correct based on types of resolutions and the date on which they are filed.
Anything in the code returned by the API that told us which resolutions are grouped together would help.
For the approach you mention above we’d be using the link to the image as a marker that let us figure out when things are grouped together. However, this is still not ideal because we can only tell which resolutions are grouped when there is an available document. If there isn’t, there’s still nothing we can use.
(What’s odd to me is that it’s looks the Beta site has the same problem that we do! It looks like each batch of individual resolutions is supposed to be a grouped list items under a single RESOLUTIONS heading. Except because the api does not link these resolutions together in anyway it’s rendering in the beta results as a heading and single bullet point that’s repeated for every single resolution.)