Slightly off-topic but does IATI give a ‘lifespan’ estimate when new version of the standard are created i.e. with an operating system, updates are guaranteed for X number of years? It seems like it might be helpful/standard practice to say with new version that they will not be depreciated (dropped from the registry/core tools) for X years, or until X date?
@stevieflow @andylolz thanks for clarifying. I was really thinking of this scenario - older activities that are poorer quality within the same datafile as activities of good quality, but I didn’t express it well!! So just thinking about Andy’s suggestion - how would it work for AidStream users.
Aidstream users (who are using the full version) should click on the button to upgrade to version 2.03 and then continue to add in their data for the current activities. If they have older, closed activities on AidStream that are poor quality (data missing/incomplete), then they can convert them to draft activities in AidStream by editing them. This means that when they publish the datafile, only the current activities will show up in a datafile that is tagged as iati-activities version=“2.03”.
This 2.03 datafile should (if no other issues) get pulled through to the new database without the older activities, which will no longer be publicly available. This should not therefore impact their funding (because the current activities are published) but will shorten their track record.
Then if an organisation has extra resources, they can go back and fix the older files if they want to show a longer track record.
For organisations with a smaller amount of activities, this will be feasible to do.For organisations that use AidStream to publish many activities,for multiple donors, it’s going to be a headache, so the more time and warning you can give, the better.
Unfortunately, as soon as funders link an open, public good like IATI to withdrawing funding which an organisation receives to run their programmes (which vulnerable people depend on) it gets a lot more complicated than just excluding data and teliing organisations to update it as and when.
Thanks again @SJohns
I think we are into some of the implementation details , based on the agreement of the principles above.
@andylolz would it be possible to share your twitter feedback in a new thread, where we can discuss this in a dedicated space? @SJohns by no means am I saying we should ignore this - but I want to keep this thread to our shared three principles. Just in the same way we have a new discussion on follow-ups for licencing, we should detail the support needed for Aistream publishers in a concentrated channel.
- Valid to the relevant schema
- Openly licenced
- Version 2.0x (but actively checking valid/open 1.0x data alongside this)
As we can see, there are follow ups and actions elsewhere, but I wanted to thank everyone for their input here, and pass onto @KateHughes in terms of implementation of the datastore. Thanks!
Could you expand on this, @stevieflow? It’s unclear what this would mean for v1.0x publishers.
See ^^. It has already been agreed that …
The DS spec does not require for deprecated versions of the standard to be processed.
It was decided, pragmatically, that although DS will come online before V1.0 is deprecated, we are talking about a couple of months and it was not worth the effort to complicate the load.
Then there hopefully will be no active 1.x data publishers anymore after the depreciation date in June this year.
It’s useful for us to reaffirm our role as a community here. We’re giving technical advice (the TA of TAG!) to the datastore project. We’re not in a position to project manage the datastore, for example. For this reason, it’ll be great to hear a progress update from the @IATI-techteam
In terms of the discussion we’ve had so far on 1.0x, then apologies if I left that vague. My understanding is that we’d leave the door open for valid 1.0x data, but that other factors instigated by the @IATI-techteam may mean becomes less of an issue:
- Existing active 1.0x publishers shift to 2.0x before June
- There’s a process in place to support the Aidstream users, who may have a mix of versions
Jumping on this thread a little late – I think it would be great to ensure that the needs of the ultimate users of the data are factored in here. There are currently some big donors publishing v1.x data to IATI (see below). It would be really unfortunate if the data from these organisations, which is currently available through the Datastore, became no longer available.
I don’t really understand the suggestion of loading all v1.x data into the Datastore once, and then never again – I would assume the development time required would be more or less the same, and presenting out of date data to users from a Datastore that is supposed to update nightly would arguably be misleading. Perhaps a better approach would be to gracefully degrade for older versions – i.e., trying to load v1.x data on a “best efforts” basis, but not focusing development or maintenance time on this.
Here are few suggestions about how to avoid losing access to all these organisations’ data:
- IATI tech team works intensively with priority organisations to support/encourage them to begin publishing v2.x data. I would argue that prioritisation should be based primarily on size of organisation.
- If there are still a large number of organisations (especially large ones) publishing v1.x data, then have a policy of gracefully degrading for no longer supported versions.
- The Datastore importer could perhaps use something like @andylolz’ v1.x to v2.03 transformer where possible to simplify the import process.
- AFD (France)
- France (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
- Switzerland (SDC)
- European Commission (FPI)
- Germany (Environment Ministry)
- Climate Investment Funds
- New Zealand
- The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
The TAG consensus to deprecate v1 in June was based on the realistic expectation (based on the ongoing work of the Tech Team) that all big publishers will upgrade. Your Suggestion 1 has been going on for some time.
@bill_anderson that’s great to hear, then perhaps we can just revisit this question around June, once we know how much progress these publishers have made.