-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: gains nace_classification
version 2.1
#348
Conversation
bump @jacobvjk |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
there are a number of duplicate codes introduced by keeping the mapping columns
also some of the codes do not seems to align between isic and nace so they need updating
Co-authored-by: Jacob Kastl <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jacob Kastl <[email protected]>
…ii.data into 234-nace_gains_description
Co-authored-by: Jacob Kastl <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jacob Kastl <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jacob Kastl <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jacob Kastl <[email protected]>
@jacobvjk I think this is ready for another review :-) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
minor change that I missed previously, then we are good to go
Co-authored-by: Jacob Kastl <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm
The NACE version 2.1 and ISIC revision 5 classification bridges are functionally identical for all PACTA-relevant sectors.
ISIC revision 5 was added in #347
This PR also now adds NACE version 2.1.
Relates to #344
Incidentally closes #234
Again @jacobvjk would appreciate a content review here to ensure that the sectoral mapping make sense