There is nothing in the data, for example, that defines which humanitarian activities should or shouldn't contain forward-looking data.
I think the argument here is that rapid onset emergencies would not necessarily expect to have forward looking data for those activities. Could we not exclude activities tagged as humanitarian (
iati-activity/@humanitarian='1') which started less than 6 months ago, or something like that?
Nor is it always clear which activities are covered by legal or competitive restrictions.
Again I think this is something that should be externally defined. For example, if we think that all DFIs should be exempted from publishing this information (I am still not convinced of this, but it sounds like that's the argument) then that is relatively easy to do. We could do something like exclude activities reported by private sector organisations, for example (e.g.
If there are other types of activities that should not be expected to publish such information then we should be able to at least describe features of them (and we could then see the extent to which they could be covered by other fields in the Standard).
Which other fields require metadata on exemptions that would improve the ability of users to assess and process the data?
For issues around commercial confidentiality, I would guess a number of transactional fields (though various publishers will clearly have more ideas here). I also think making clear that data is not published because of systems limitations would be useful for certain fields, e.g. title, description, implementing organisation, some classifications.
Forward-looking data is one of the most important cornerstones of IATI's raison d'etre and accurate benchmarking of this dimension is, I would argue, a legitimate exercise.
Agreed, but I don't see how self-reporting will allow you to do this with any accuracy. You would have an uneven playing field between similar publishers depending on whether each of them decided to use this or not. It would be odd if at least some publishers didn't tag all of their activities that didn't have a
budget element as
budget-exempt. (And they wouldn't necessarily be acting in bad faith by doing so.)