The Activity Standard allows for publishers to reflect their particular business model by reporting their activities in a hierarchical structure: for example using hierarchical levels to distinguish between programmes and their constituent projects and sub-components. Rules and guidance are unclear, inter alia, as to:
- What elements must be inherited by a child activity
- At what level commitments and budgets can be reported
- At what level results can be reported
This also impacts upon publisher statistics methodology.
Please add other hierarchy-related issues here
This paper outline is part of the Agenda for the IATI TAG 2016 Technical Consultation Workshop
#IATI #TAG2016
Steven Flower are you saying that it is possible to use the schema to validate things such as reporting transactions at the non-lowest level?
Bill Anderson No. The “rule” for this is just written in the textual description for this attribute - not enforced by the schema via any condition. Correct?
Additionally, consider a publisher with two IATI activities:
The schema does not check other activities/files to validate the one in hand. It has no awareness that activity A should not have transactions, nor to look in activity B for them.
Consider this publisher: http://dashboard.iatistandard.org/publisher/malariaconsortium.html
This file:
http://www.malariaconsortium.org/IATI-XML/GB-CHC-1099776-J7.xml - passes validation - eg:
http://validator.iatistandard.org/?perm=www.malariaconsortium.org_IATI-XML_GB-CHC-1099776-J7.xml_1485599180
However, within that one file are activities across two hierarchies, both of which contain transactions