Guidance on U.r.i. Usage for publisher’s own vocabularies (included 2.03)

activity_standard
2-03_codelists

(IATI Technical Team) #1

This proposal is part of the 2.03 upgrade process, please comment by replying below.

Standard
Activity and Organisation

**Schema Object** All occurrences of attribute @vocabulary-uri

**Type of Change** Definition

**Issue** Users need to be able to accurately interpret classifying and coding systems contained in IATI data. When publishers use their own, in-house codelists, it is important that the full content of these lists is easily accessible to users.

**Proposal** Change the definition of @vocabulary-uri

  • From: “If the vocabulary is 99 or 98 (reporting organisation), the URI where this internal vocabulary is defined.”
  • To: “If the vocabulary is 99 or 98 (reporting organisation), the URI where this internal vocabulary is defined. While this is an optional field it is STRONGLY RECOMMENDED that all publishers use it to ensure that the meaning of their codes are fully understood by data users.”
**Standards Day** It was also argued that user-defined codelists should be published in the same format as IATI codelist schema. In general there was agreement that this guideline should progress.

**Links** http://bit.ly/2lCMYvS


(IATI Technical Team) #2

This topic has been included for consideration in the formal 2.03 proposal


(IATI Technical Team) #5

Notes from consultation calls w/c 3rd July

The proposal was reviewed by those on the call and there was no objection from the group.


(IATI Technical Team) #6

This proposal has been been included in the 2.03 upgrade. It can be viewed in the following two Discuss posts:


(IATI Technical Team) #7