Allow for sectors to be specified at transaction as well as activity level.
For some publishers this will allow for far more accurate reporting than percentage splits across multiple sectors at activity level.
This will also fill a potential loophole for CRS reporters. If data is reported to CRS with Purpose Code X, and the sector for the activity is, in a subsequent year, changed to Purpose Code Y, the integrity of the data reported to CRS could be maintained with transaction-level sectors.
Strongly agree with this. For example, in PWYF, our transactions are all coded up with a detailed classification of expenditure. It would be great to be able to publish those classifications in addition to the descriptions in our line-item expenditure.
Strongly agree. I would add two thoughts:
1) similarly add transaction/recipient-country and transaction/location
2) deprecate sector/@percentage
3) deprecate recipient-country/@percentage
4) add transaction/sector/@percentage and transaction/recipient-country/@percentage
This will move the estimates down to a much higher-level of granularity, and eliminate the very real risk of having internally inconsistent activity records where we get different financial values by sector or location depending on whether we use the transaction/sector type attributes or the higher-level percentages.
One addition to avoid inconsistencies: when sectors are specified on the transaction level, they should NOT be specified on the activity level . The other way around: when sectors and percentages are specified on the activity level: they should not be specified on the transaction level. This should in my opnion be part of the guidelines.
I strongly disagree to depreciate the sector an country percentages on activity level: in practice transactions are very often not earmarked beforehand to either country or sector. This is not possible and sometmes even not desirable. The percentages are in this case just an intention/estimate of the donor, in no way related to individual transactions. The actial distribution of transactions over sectors and countries, can only be derived by looking at the IATI reporting of the implementing organisations.
The sector element at transaction level is not identical to the element at activity level: it does not contain a percentage attribute.
Does this mean we should be using a different name - such as transaction/transaction-sector?
We think not but wanted to be clear that we are aware of this discrepancy.
Hey BIll. Question: What happens if there is one transaction split between multiple sectors if we don't have a percentage attribute?
We thought about this and concluded that:
My hunch would be that in most cases where a transaction covers multiple sectors all transactions in the activity are likely to be similar so a percentage split at activity level would be the best solution.
I assume that that sector codelist on both the transaction and the activitylevel are identical?
Yes
8 Comments