Co-funded and thirdparty for related-activities

(Richard) #1

I’ve been hunting through all of the old threads on this topic but I can’t find any consensus, sorry. This question refers to v2.03

As I understand it we only use related-activity for internal relationships i.e. parent/child/sibling. I’ve already got a thread on this and from that and “Publication Guidelines for Partners, Contractors and Suppliers of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs” it seems quite clear. Given that we only link to external activities, either donors or contractors, via transactions is there a use for the ‘co-funded’ and ‘thirdparty’ relationship types?

Thanks for that. I’m doing a bunch of restructuring of our systems and trying to look forwards to what might happen as to where we currently are

Richard

(Amy Silcock) #2

Hi @RichPepp,

As well as linking to organisations in each transactions, you should provide their role e.g. 1 funder, using the <participating-org> element. You can have multiple funding organisations in one activity.

Currently there is no option to mark a relationship as ‘co-funded’ or ‘thirdparty’. This you could add in narrative text?

Other organisations may have ways of showing this?

(Andy Lulham) #3

I think @RichPepp is referring to the Co-funded (4) and Third Party (5) types from the RelatedActivityType codelist.

These types don’t see much use from publishers, according to the IATI Dashboard (a total of 6 and 4 publishers using them, respectively).

Usage of these types was discussed a bit last year. See this thread, and in particular this post:

(Richard) #4

Hi @andylolz
Yes, that’s exactly correct. I had seen the thread that you linked to but it didn’t manage to tie it down for me. I’ll try looking through the publishers that already use it to get more of a clue of how it is being used at the moment - thanks for that link

Hi @amys
Thanks for your reply. It was indeed from the relatedactivitytype codelist for transactions rather than activities. I’m not in a hurry to use it really but just wanted to see if we needed to. I think that participating-org is probably clearer at the activity level