We need inspector names after all

[konklone]

Right now we have 4 fields that we ensure are present, for downstream sources to use in displaying information about reports:

• agency
• agency_name
• inspector
• inspector_url

I think an inspector_name field makes sense to add. It's extremely helpful to have agency_name, as an inspector can watch over multiple agencies and having this granular data is great. But for contexts where displaying the name of the organization that issued the report is important, you really need the name of the OIG office.

I'm motivated to file this by the Internet Archive uploading in #63 that I've been working on. I link to the inspector_url, but using the agency_name in place of the OIG's name seems inappropriate in this context.

The steps here would be:

• Update each IG scraper with an inspector_name field.
• Add inspector_name to the validation requirements in utils.inspector.validate_report()
• An admin should re-run the scraper for the entire archive, without actually re-downloading any reports.

[konklone]

I've still got Internet Archive work ahead of me, and this is not actually a showstopper right now, so if anyone else wants to grab this, go for it.

[audiodude]

@konklone So for a couple of examples, just to make sure I'm doing this right:

http://www.usda.gov/oig/ - "United States Department of Agriculture"
http://oig.hhs.gov/ - "United States Department of Health and Human Services"

or should it just be

http://www.usda.gov/oig/ - "Agriculture"
http://oig.hhs.gov/ - "Health and Human Services"

And if I'm not mistaken, in many cases the agency_name and inspector_name will be the same, yes?

[konklone]

I think "United States" can be left off, but "Department of" should not. So it'd be:

• Department of Agriculture
• Department of Health and Human Services

And yes, in most cases the agency_name and inspector_name will be the same. This is why it didn't seem worth doing upfront, but I appreciate the merits now.

[divergentdave]

There is now a comprehensive list of names at https://github.com/konklone/oversight.io/blob/master/config/inspectors.json, should we leave it at that, or ought the inspector name go into each report JSON?

[konklone]

I think that JSON file has what we need -- but maybe it's worth moving into this repo as canonical data, instead of just one downstream use of this repo? Easy enough to pull in to oversight.io from this repo, do you think?