I have no issues with these suggestions.
@annadownie @bwalkden Yes, you are right. these are the two major points. The discussion is not about whether or not IATI should support qualitative results for a single activity, but about how qualitative results can be modelled in IATI without complicating data-use. When you want to do an statistical analysis over multiple activities, then you really need non-qualitative results.
@mikesmith Thanks for your comments. I think we could have an agreement
if we add 2 rules for the IATI guidelines:
1 - The @value may only be optional if the indicator measure is 'Qualitative’
2 - The @value must be a valid number for all non-qualitative measures.
Does this make sense?
Makes good sense to me.
Actually, I’d go slightly further than my previous reply and suggest that for qualitative results the @value must be omitted (not even an option), and for quantitative results it must be present. However I’d be perfectly content with Herman’s suggestion rather than delay further.
Agree! To pull it all together I think its:
Add three codes to the IndicatorMeasure codelist:
- Nominal - the indicator is measured as a quantitative nominal scale.
- Ordinal - the indicator is measured as a quantitative ordinal scale.
- Qualitative - the indicator is qualitative
and make the following value attributes optional
- result/indicator/baseline/@value
- result/indicator/period/target/@value
- result/indicator/period/actual/@value
add 3 rules for the IATI guidelines:
1 - the @value must be omitted for qualitative measures
2 - The @value must be included for non-qualitative measures
3 - The @value must be a valid number for all non-qualitative measures.
3 Likes
Thanks so much @mikesmith @bwalkden @Herman @markbrough. I will change the status of this issue to a big YES.
2 Likes
This proposal has been been included in the 2.03 upgrade. It can be viewed in the following two Discuss posts: