The requirement in the standard that an organisation identifier should be on this codelist: http://iatistandard.org/codelists/organisation/ is out dated.
As such we should remove both this requirement and this codelist. Instead it would be useful if IATI could publish a list of organisation identifiers that are currently in use in the data. Publishers/users should be encouraged to understand the guidance at: http://iatistandard.org/getting-started/organisation-data/organisation-identifiers/ and this guidance should be accepted as full guidance and not 'draft' guidance as it is now.
Strongly disagree. The codelist should remain and continue to be used until there is solid guidance on this subject. The codelist is the best we have at the moment (at least for public bodies) and it is better than nothing. This would also be a significantly backward-incompatible change - it has the potential to break a lot of stuff.
Propose this is deferred until an integer upgrade which addresses the problem of organisation identifiers properly.
We think the current situation is a bit of a mess, and that by removing the requirement for an organisation identifier to be on a particular list, the situation will be improved. A legacy list can remain in place as a reference document from which people can look up identifiers, but the proposal also allows requires the replacement of the list with a different reference point going forward.
Improved guidance should enable people to choose better organisation identifiers.
This is always going to be a tricky area, but we think this is a move forward.
I Have some doubts about this topic. The organization code list is pivotal for linking IATI data between publishers. I tend to agree with Mark that we should be very careful with depreciating this list. Especially because it provides guidance for identifying many large established organizations. Though the situation is a bit of a mess, it is better than nothing.
In those cases, the list does not provide a unique identification of an organization, the described guidelines provide some help. So in my opinion, the code list can co-exist with the guidelines as long as there is no more robust solution. In case there is a conflict between the two, I would say the code list takes precedence because it ensures a unique identification for the major organisations.
Arggh - why cant I edit my comment ! My apologies - seems I cant type or count today and Open Circe is http://opencirce.org/org
As the deadline for 1.04 draws near, and taking all of the above into account, we are proposing the following:
1) Guidance that organisation identifiers must be on the Organisation Identifier codelist will be removed from the standard. It is clearly unworkable for IATI to maintain a single list.
2) The current list will remain in place as one option for looking up against, but will not be maintained.
3) As part of the 1.05 process we will do the work outlined by Kit Wallace above. Additionally, we will create look up lists based on the data and on information supplied by publishers via the IATI Registry. We will maintain legacy lists of codes that may not be retained anywhere else. Details are here in this google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zqpZoaWL_DdAGv8agnE4UtnNYunmYlXcgMOhOFnWuSo/edit#