This is an overview of the first of three consultative iterations leading towards the adoption of IATI's first integer upgrade at the end of this year. In this iteration we map out the scope of the upgrade and provide a logical proposal for each item under consideration. In the next few weeks formal definitions and xml will be prepared in advance of the second iteration on 23rd June.
- You can find the original proposal for this upgrade, released in February, here.
- This was submitted to the Steering Committee in March in this report and with this timetable.
- Feedback from the Steering Committee was reported here.
This proposal is divided into eight sections. You can find the logic in the following separate posts.
- Strengthening the Core of the Standard
- Additional Mandatory Conditions
- Language Neutral Codelists
- Multi-lingual Text Fields
- A Consistent Approach to OECD DAC Organisation Identifiers
- Improvements to the Organisation Standard
- Replicate more activity-level elements at transaction level
- All members of the Steering Committee, all publishers and users of IATI data, and all members of the IATI Technical Advisory Group are invited and encouraged to participate in this consultation.
- You can do this by commenting on the specific topics that are linked to the detailed proposals laid out in the links above.
- If you prefer to comment privately you are welcome to email support @ iatistandard.org
- It is hoped that a transparent, collaborative consensus will develop out of this consultation.
There are GitHub issues to track the technical implementation for each of the 8 section:
Bill, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, we were not going to fix the Tied Aid Status element in 2.01 (ie align on the DAC reporting standard)? I can't seem to find it in the list above.
When this was reviewed there appeared to be two options:
The consensus was that the latter does allow for logical consistency with CRS.
Does this work for you?
I don't think we had seen these options before, so I'll have to get back to you. But could you clarify in which section/post this change is being discussed?
From Canada's point of view, the first option is preferable. It follows CRS more closely (as it should, since this element "belongs" to CRS) and it avoids creating additional commitments to report the tying status.