There has been a suggestion to extend the types of description allowed on elements from the 3 specifiedon the Description Type codelist. AKVO have suggested some ideas but we are not sure, and would welcome further community support in deciding what should be on an extended list, or whether this can be dealt with through an namespace as AKVO are doing already.
There is a short period time in this consultation phase to see if there is the desire for this to be worked into a full proposal for 1.03 or not.
It would need to allow for more than one description type per activity, especially if more types were added. Perhaps gain more experience through a namespace first?
We suggest we come back to this in the next cycle to allow for a fuller discussion.
This is now bumped into the 1.04 process
..and bumped again into 1.05. This is a lower priority to the other ideas that are to move forward, and the ground work still needs to be done.
Moving into 1.05 for further consideration.
Could Akvo (and others) come up with some specific proposals?
We are currently working with an extended Description Code list in order to accommodate all of the Akvo RSR fields within the IATI Standard. Where the standard covers 1-3, we have 1-10 that are as follows:
These provide a good overview for the storytelling side of project presentation, that we have found our partners and the public can gain good insights into the activities being undertaken.
I would like to throw Cordaid's support behind Adrian's suggestion. Since we already use AKVO RSR, extending the Description Code list has already (unofficially) made our dataset so much more valuable in terms of story telling, reporting and re-use.
These additional descriptive fields also created more 'buy-in' from our project managers for the IATI standard as they saw the purpose of filling it in.
By using this list of 10 additional fields we have been able to populate our website, create track record documents, report to the foreign ministry and create organizational awareness of what we do. All of this, just from the one IATI file.
Would it be possible to add another category?, klet's say "other". We are currently using the match that each project has with each Strategic Objective (SO). I would like to specify both a general description and a the SO that project is working for.
Thanks for the suggestion Cristián - would you be able to illustrate your suggestion with an example, and a suggestion as to how the codelist should actually reflect your change? This list requires a code, a name for the code, and a description.
Equally, Adrian, what would the descriptive text be for your suggestions?
just to comment on your question to Adrian, we use the descriptive fields as following on our website.
Each project on our website is loaded directly from our IATI file. We see IATI as a communication tool and we believe this could be one of the strengths of IATI.
We are currently also running a pilot with the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs to see how IATI can replace a large part of our annual reporting to them. What is important for them is to also be able to get qualitative data from our datasets to help answer questions in parliament.
For example, the current Description Type Codelist (version 1.04) is:
I don't know if it makes sense to add more categories, since each organization has different needs in this sense. Then I would suggest to add a 4th category:
4 Other Any other classification or information that the organization provides to each activity. For ex, Strategic Objective, Product type, etc.
From my view, I think an "Other" category would provide the common accepted structure to be able to adapt the RSR model into the IATI standard with little further work (just replacing the current namespace solution we have already implemented).
However I also believe that potentially some more specific types of descriptions could be beneficial in guiding publishers to think about the type of information that they are presenting on their acitvities - after all, a lot of thought has gone into the data model of RSR and we would like to share the outcome of this to benefit all.
So, taking these in turn I have come up with these descriptions of the descriptions:
The IATI Tech team had a discussion on this issue yesterday. Our view is:
To be added to Description Type codelist: http://iatistandard.org/codelists/DescriptionType/
For implementation details, follow:
In the current codelist, French translations of the names of options are available.
(see the source at: https://github.com/IATI/IATI-Codelists/blob/version-1.04/xml/DescriptionType.xml )
Can anyone provide a suitable French translation for the value of 'Other'?
I have received the suggestion of 'Autre' as a suitable French translation of 'Other'
Is this acceptable?
We've been advised that 'Autre' is acceptable.