IATI guidance states that the two Reporting Organisation codes for Sectors (codes 98 & 99):
It is also recommended that if a publisher has its own classification system or systems then the vocabularies 99 or 98 (Reporting Organisation’s own vocabularies) should be used in addition to DAC codes.
When using 98 or 99, a publisher can add a
vocaulary-uri to point to that vocabulary online (added in 2.02)
With the Initiative for Open Ag Funding, we have started to unearth cases where there may well be a need for more than two RO vocabularies. Eventually, these may well be added to the vocab code list (see also #495: Make vocab codelists non- embedded ), but we wanted to clarify whether the standard could feasibly be expressed by publishers by :
- using either code 98 or 99 - but with different vocabulary-uri attributes - to express multiple vocabularies. This example details four different RO vocabularies (via the uri)
<sector code="1" vocabulary=""98" vocabulary-url="http://sectorvocabA.example.org" /> <sector code="2" vocabulary=""98" vocabulary-url="http://sectorvocabB.example.org" /> <sector code="3" vocabulary=""99" vocabulary-url="http://sectorvocabC.example.org" /> <sector code="4" vocabulary=""99" vocabulary-url="http://sectorvocabD.example.org" />
This doesn’t seem very elegant or user-friendly. A way round this could be to reserve a block of codes (eg: 80-100?) for RO vocabularies, for example (but that may in turn have more impact on data users). It would be useful to clarify/discuss this. @rolfkleef may have ideas!