Migration of OrganisationRegistrationAgency codelist to Org-id.guide (included 2.03)

Since the org-id methodology seems to support multiple lists of org id’s, isn’t there a risk that the same organization is being referred to with different identifiers?

I’m supportive of this change. It would reduce pressure on IATI to handle organisation identification requirements of other standards (which are currently deferring to the IATI list) and will open up the possibility of creating additional tooling to improve validation and quality assurance of organisation identifiers.

(Full disclosure: I wrote the original IATI organisation identification methodology, and have been working on the development of org-id.guide)

At the moment, the Organisation Identifiers methodology states that The namespace code (1) may contain a dash - and the ORA Codelist contains only codes with a single dash. The Base Identifier is then joined with the Namespace Code by a dash to create an Org ID.

Looking at the org-id list, there are some codes with multiple dashes, which is not permitted within the IATI methodology (not looked to see if there are any with no dashes, which is technically permitted but would be inadvisable).

Tim Davies Are there checks within the org-id methodology to ensure Namespace Codes may be unambiguously extracted from an IATI-format Organisation Identifier? For example, if there is a code AE-AJ-CR, there may not be codes AE or AE-AJ, but there may be code AE-A or AE-AJ-C.

Along this point, this proposal does change the Standard because (assuming values currently present in the org-id list are permitted), it changes the permitted format of a Namespace Code.

This topic is primarily for information purposes only. It has been included in the formal 2.03 proposal to allow for the modification of the @ref definition.

There will be some consultation calls in early July for any 2.03 proposals where people would like to discuss them further - if you would like to discuss this proposal on one of the calls please ‘Like’ this IATI tech team post by end of Mon 26 June - you can do this by clicking the heart symbol to the bottom right hand side of this message.

Further details on the calls are available in the ‘How to participate’ topic.

This proposal will be discussed on a consultation call on Codelists and secondary publishers - Wednesday 5 July, 3pm (BST), 1 hour

To join this call, use this link from your computer, tablet or smartphone https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/564155565
You can also dial in using your phone
United Kingdom: +44 20 3713 5028
United States: +1 (312) 757-3129
Access Code: 564-155-565

Please 'like' this post if you plan on joining this call (click the heart symbol to the bottom right of this message)

Notes from consultation calls w/c 3rd July

Discussion:
The IATI technical team explained a bit more on the process for transition to org-id.guide and clarified that there will be no change to the structure of the IATI organisation identifiers.

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

To be able to do proper data validation on usage of existing registration agencies, the full list of registration agencies should be available in a machine readable format, preferably the default IATI codelist XML format ( http://iatistandard.org/202/codelists/downloads/clv3/xml/OrganisationRegistrationAgency.xml ).

Example on this validation being applied; http://www.iatibugtracker.org/datasets/2951

Tim Davies is there such a list available from org-id.guide ?