Discussion

Missing Aid Type Vocabulary?

Yohanna Loucheur
Yohanna Loucheur • 21 February 2018
2 comments

Continuing the discussion from Add vocabularies to aid-type (included 2.03):

I’m a bit confused about where we’re at regarding the addition of vocabularies to the aid-type element.

I can see that in 2.03 it is now possible to indicate an aid-type value from a vocabulary other than the DAC, as long as one specifies the vocabulary (via a code). This “code must be a valid value in the AidTypeVocabulary codelist”.

However, when looking at the AidTypeVocabulary codelist, only the DAC appears: http://iatistandard.org/203/codelists/AidTypeVocabulary/

My understanding is that this change was meant specifically to enable the use of the Grand Bargain typology for earmarking. Shouldn’t the Grand Bargain codelist be added to the Aid Type Vocabulary codelist then? Otherwise, what was the point of this change in the standard.

Comments (2)

Steven Flower
Steven Flower • 6 years ago

I observed this too.

Also. Ole Jacob (OJ) Hjøllund stated:

This is a problem that must be fixed by DAC, as I argued in London. And for that purpose I have provided a first draft, and submitted it for initial discussions in WP-STAT asap. I will mail you a copy, and if you can advise me on how to share it with any reader of this thread I would be happy to do that as well.

I can’t find anything since on this, but interested to know more.

Please log in or sign up to comment.