Standard
Activity
Schema Object
iati-activiity/related-contract
iati-activity/transaction/related-contract
Type of Change
Addition
Issue
Contracts published using the Open Contracting Data Standard can be linked to activities published through IATI, at either activity or transaction level.
Proposal
Based on advice from Tim Davies …
-
related-contract/@contract-process-id
Contracting process identifier - in OCDS this is the ocid (Open Contracting ID) and should be a globally unique identifier -
related-contract/@contract-id
Contract Identifier - a contracting process might result in multiple contracts (for example, a call for partners that then awards 5 partners, each with their own contract). The Contract ID only has to be unique within the scope of the contracting process, so to unique identify a specific contract requires the pairing of these identifiers -
related-contract/@url
A URL could be provided to a OCDS release package that contains the contracting process and contract discussed. However, OCDS does not use URLs as identifiers, and recognises that (a) some publishers provide multiple processes at a particular URI (e.g. when they only publish bulk data). and (b) some publishers struggle to maintain stable URIs - so we tend to think of URIs as helpful for users, but no guarantee of discovering information.
Standards Day
This was discussed in a TAG session on contracting but was mistakenly overlooked on the Standards Day agenda
Links
http://standard.open-contracting.org/latest/en/schema/identifiers/
(#JoinedUpDataStandards)
Thanks Bill Anderson . I’ve alerted the OCDS community to this also and created a parallel issue at https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/issues/478
I think the advice I was giving focussed on the need to have a way of identifying three things:
However, I’ve been looking back over our working paper on this, and the key issue there of modelling different kinds of relationship:
I’m not sure that a related-contract element at the activity and transaction level helps us distinguish these adequately, and we would definitely want to refine the documentation around this to explain to publishers and users what they could interpret/learn from the inclusion of a related-contract link within a IATI publication.
I think it would be really useful for us to try and construct a quick worked example or two of the linkage with real world data just to check this out more. I think it should be possible to find examples from DFID where we could do this.
This topic has been included for consideration in the formal 2.03 proposal subject to further clarification
There will be some consultation calls in early July for any 2.03 proposals where people would like to discuss them further - if you would like to discuss this proposal on one of the calls please ‘Like’ this IATI tech team post by end of Mon 26 June - you can do this by clicking the heart symbol to the bottom right hand side of this message.
Further details on the calls are available in the ‘How to participate’ topic.
This proposal will be discussed on a consultation call on Tuesday 4 July, 3pm (BST), 1 hour
To join this call, use this link from your computer, tablet or smartphone https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/760173485
You can also dial in using your phone
United Kingdom: +44 330 221 0088
United States: +1 (571) 317-3129
Access Code: 760-173-485
Please 'like' this post if you plan on joining this call (click the heart symbol to the bottom right of this message)
Notes from consultation calls w/c 3rd July
The proposal was reviewed by those on the call and there was no objection from the group.
Please log in or sign up to comment.