Apologies for the late contribution, but I have somehow missed all the community calls (and couldn't find any times or info posted online?).
I do support the addition of more result vocabularies in order to allow publishers to refer to 'common ground' indicators and thus be able to make more sense of results data.
I would expect IATI to stick to internationally recognised vocabularies such as e.g. the SDGs, World Development Indicators and possibly sector specific recognised vocabularies, however.
I'm not an M&E expert, but the proposed list of vocabularies contains some problems. A few examples:
• Dutch Development Results: http://www.dutchdevelopmentresults.nl/
As far as I know this is not a maintained vocabulary. Next to that it is donor/country specific. If each donor or country comes up with a vocabulary, we'll end up with hundreds of vocabularies which contradicts the purpose of using vocabularies.
This is i.m.o. a selection of internationally recognised indicators from different (source) vocabularies
I fail to see how Open 17 is a separate vocabulary. It seems to refer to the SDGs?
As said, I'm not an M&E expert and therefore not in a position to examine the value of all the proposed vocabularies - but I think IATI should stick to recognising the obvious ones. The more organisation specific vocabularies can still be referred to using "vocabulary="99""