Apologies for the delay in taking this forward. (The responsibility for this delay sits with me, not the Tech Team as a whole.) Herewith the final proposed content for the 2.03 Upgrade.

In the spirit of the proposed new approach (for which we seek approval in Rome this week) we are seeking consensus on this ‘English language’ summary before presenting a technical proposal by 13 October.

Please record any objections on this thread.

Subject to no further disruptions we envisage that the release candidate for this upgrade should be available at the beginning of January. We will publish a revised timetable in due course.

 

 

Comments (11)

Daniel Mackenzie
Daniel Mackenzie

Hi Bill Anderson , thanks for this document. It’s all very clear and a great summary of the proposals.

I’ve had a quick scan through, and I’ve noticed that this proposal is missing:

Results – recognising partner contributions (excluded 2.03) 2.03 Decimal Upgrade Proposals

Title Results – recognising partner contributions Standard Activity Schema Object iati-activities/iati-activity/result iati-activities/iati-activity/result/indicator Type of Change Addition to schema Issue • Currently attribution is only possible for entire projects, not individual results or indicators. • Why is this a problem?: An increasingly large proportion of projects involve working in partnerships, be it from working with community groups, governments, NGOs, the private sector…

I understood that this one was going through after the consultation call. If this is still the case, can it be added to the list?

Many thanks,

Daniel

IATI Technical Team
IATI Technical Team

Daniel Mackenzie As per our email exchange, following the consultation calls in July and the update post on IATI Discuss ‘Progress as of 16 August’, a comment was added to this specific proposal on 18th of August requesting that we get more evidence first on how partner contributions should be incorporated in the standard at results level and holding off from including it in the current upgrade process. Hence, the proposal was excluded from the final proposal for 2.03 content.

Tim Davies
Tim Davies

I’ve reviewed, and can see the proposals I’ve been supporting in here and clearly set out.

For the description of ‘Add a sector or ‘tag’ classification’ - now that the extension draft has focussed on having a new ‘tag’ element (rather than modifying sector), it may be possible to rephrase this to clearly state that (but that might be getting into the tech detail that’s not needed at this stage)

Yohanna  Loucheur
Yohanna Loucheur

As we prepare to migrate to 2.03, I am looking for the table that lists all changes involved in the 2.03 upgrade (similar to this for 2.02).

I think this is where I could find it:

bill_anderson:

Herewith the final proposed content for the 2.03 Upgrade.

Unfortunately the above Google doc is password-protected. Could the IATI Technical Team either provide access to the document or point me to the right place to find the tables for 2.03?

Thanks in advance.

Yohanna  Loucheur
Yohanna Loucheur

Thanks Bill! Unfortunately it wasn’t in fact what I was looking for.

IATI Technical Team , the 2.03 changelog does not seem to have a schema table (in Excel) like the 2.02 did - at least I’m not finding it despite clicking around the whole changelog.

If there is indeed a table, could you point me to it (with the actual link)?

Yohanna  Loucheur
Yohanna Loucheur

Thanks Amy, that is indeed what I was looking for.

I think it would be useful to provide a link to it in the 2.03 Changelog, as it is very useful when migrating between versions of the standard. Links are provided in the changelog to discussion threads on specific issues, but not to this schema presentation.


Please log in or sign up to comment.