The publisher_boundary_scope table

What one library states about a scope term on one of its boundaries, where the boundary name alone cannot settle it: an input-output model leaves capital goods out, a transport framework leaves road building out.

Fields#

field	type	required	example	meaning
`publisher_code`	text	yes	glec	The library whose own documentation states the answer.
`boundary_code`	text	yes	energy_lifecycle	The boundary the answer holds on, for that library's factors.
`category_code`	text		transport	The category branch or leaf the row is limited to, from the open_ef category tree. Null means every factor of the library on that boundary.
`term_code`	text	yes	infrastructure	Which boundary question the row answers.
`disposition`	text	yes	out	`in` or `out`. Never `varies`: a library that does not state the term has no row.
`note`	text	yes	GLEC leaves out building and maintaining roads, inland waterways and rail track.	One plain sentence saying what the publisher states about the term.
`evidence_url`	text	yes	https://smart-freight-centre-media.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/GLEC_FRAMEWORK_v3.2_21_10_25_1.pdf	The publisher's own document the note is read from.

Notes#

It sits between a factor's own boundary_profile and the boundary defaults in system_boundary_scope. A row with a null category_code speaks for every factor of the library on that boundary; a row with one speaks for that branch or leaf of the category tree only, and the most specific row wins.

disposition is only ever in or out. A library that does not say has no row, which is why a term can still read not_stated on a factor, and why that answer names the publisher. Every row cites the publisher's own document in evidence_url, and note says in one sentence what it states. On factors_flat, boundary_scope_source reads library, library_category or library_sub_category wherever one of these rows gave the answer.