You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 24, 2024. It is now read-only.
It doesn't include the date the notice was published or the link to the Federal Register source, which is critical for unambiguously identifying the SORN and for users who want to verify the data with or read the original notice.
However, as you can see from that example, the same system often has multiple notices for revisions, etc, so there is no guarantee the first response is the associated SORN.
It would be great to include at least those two fields, possibly citation and document_number, which is used to uniquely identify notices in the Federal Register API, and perhaps other fields from the Federal Register ruby model:
The CSV header for the
search.csv
response includes these categoriesIt doesn't include the date the notice was published or the link to the Federal Register source, which is critical for unambiguously identifying the SORN and for users who want to verify the data with or read the original notice.
The best alternative I have found is using the Federal Register's search system to search for the
system_name
which contains the system number, like this:https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/search?conditions%5Bterm%5D=Mass+Alert+and+Notification+Systems+%28MANS%29%2C+EPA-44.#
However, as you can see from that example, the same system often has multiple notices for revisions, etc, so there is no guarantee the first response is the associated SORN.
It would be great to include at least those two fields, possibly citation and document_number, which is used to uniquely identify notices in the Federal Register API, and perhaps other fields from the Federal Register ruby model:
all_sorns/app/models/federal_register_client.rb
Lines 9 to 11 in d62d2ba
I'd be happy to work on a PR for this if you would be open to that!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: