Calling the new field
publishing-app (and associated Codelist
PublishingApp) would better indicate that it is describing a process rather than an entity.
An Activity or Organisation may be defined without a parent root element. An
Enhancer application (see below) may alternatively modify only one of several Activities within a dataset. As such, would propose this was added at the
...or possibly at the higher level, with lower-level override (though that seems confusing).
Take a tool that is able to enhance an existing IATI XML file with additional information. Call it
Enhancer. When you take a file generated by, say,
AidStream and pass it through
Enhancer, which value should be published?
By the base proposal, the implication is that you should state that the file was generated by
Enhancer. Doing this means you lose information about how the data was originally generated. As such, it should be possible to state multiple applications involved in the process of generating the XML.
Would therefore propose that
publishing-app should be an element rather than an attribute.
As an element, it becomes unclear of the order in which applications touched the dataset. As such, an additional attribute to indicate the order in which applications touched the data could be added.
There was a suggestion on Standards Day that browser User Agents could be used as inspiration. They are not a good example of how information can be represented well.