Update Vulnerability adding impact object, function objects and changing some field names and descriptions

[odscjen]

Related issues

closes #74, closes #75, closes #76, closes #77, closes #78, closes #125 and addresses some of #56

Merge checklist

• Update the changelog (style guide)
• Run ./manage.py pre-commit

[odscjen]

required #101 to be approved and merged before this one is ready as it contains the Cost object that is created in #101

[odscjen]

impact_metric.csv still requires descriptions, see #125 for that issue but it shouldn't hold up pushing this PR through

[duncandewhurst]

Also, need to remove unreferenced definitions:

• common_aggregation_type
• common_occupancy_time
• vulnerability_f_relationship

[stufraser1]

Please see individual comments

[duncandewhurst]

@stufraser1 please take a look at my review comments, there are quite a few on which it would be good to get your input. If you are happy with any of the suggestions, feel free to commit them. Thanks!

[stufraser1]

I'd like to add a code:
asset_count,Number of assets damaged,"The estimated number of structure, or length of infrastructure damaged.", Loss
If you think we need to separate count and length (for network infrastructure we communicate in terms of km of roads damaged e.g.) then please suggest the code suffix.

[odscjen]

Because this list is used in impact which has .metric (which takes from this list) and .unit I don't think we need to split this up into two as the unit should clarify it. But I have changed the name to 'asset_loss' to retain _count for when metrics only relate to a count of numbers.

[stufraser1]

I'd like to add a code:
displaced_count,Number of people displaced,"The estimated number of people displaced due to physical damage and disruption.", Loss

[stufraser1]

Can we make the category "Loss and Damage" instead of "Loss"?
This would be very helpful to communicate the range of impacts not just being monetary Loss, but I don't know if this change would have other implications in the standard.

[odscjen]

The category should refer to the object the code can be used in. At the moment that's Loss. I see that you've suggested a change from Loss to Loss_and_damage, I feel that's a change that is best left until the next iteration of the standard as that feels like quite a significant semantic change.

[stufraser1]

This does not seem comprehensive. Why do we not have GED4ALL taxonomy for buildings referenced here, for example?

[odscjen]

So at the moment the only place this codelist is being referenced is in se_category so we only included the schemes for that

[stufraser1]

Agree on putting semantic change to SC review

requested changes applied

[stufraser1]

If this was merged in dev branch, why does the json file on dev branch still contain outdated codes e.g.,
enum": [
"Agriculture",
"Buildings",
"Infrastructures",
"Population",
"Natural environment"
]

[duncandewhurst]

If this was merged in dev branch, why does the json file on dev branch still contain outdated codes e.g., enum": [ "Agriculture", "Buildings", "Infrastructures", "Population", "Natural environment" ]

I think that's just an omission. There's one occurrence of the out-of-date enum (in Loss.category), which I've flagged in #132 (comment).

There's a draft PR (#127) which adds a test to validate that codelist enums are in-sync with the CSV files. I've suggested that we merge that PR after merging the other PRs in order to catch anything we missed.