Hope I can make it to the TAG, Bill! Thanks for starting the discussions early.
I think an interesting aspect to add to the broad agenda is how different data users currently interpret possibly ambiguous or erroneous data in their tools or platforms. That could help distinguishing possible improvements to go into either 2.03 or 3.01, based on actual practice.
Example: for our IATI Learning Workshop, I visualised data of a partnership funded by the Dutch MFA, and discussed it with @Herman: I used
related-activity and found a direction error in parent-child activities; he added a "zero" incoming commitment
transaction based on incoming funds, to show the right relation in their dashboard.
I've also had discussions on whether or not to include explicit disbursement/incoming-fund transactions between parent-child relations within an organisation (both ways?). How do you interpret "missing flows" within an organisation, and do they need to be more explicit for the use cases we care for?
Likewise: the d-portal.org platform interprets data and presents potential double counting (for instance of budgets) on activities within an organisation. We've had a case where the advice from IATI/d-portal would be to omit budgets on one level, although our advice would be to make the data on a particular activity as complete as you can provide.
I'd certainly be an evangalist for #pedanticIATI, but I think #pragmaticIATI will help all of us move the standard and its uptake forward
I think it would be great if we can share such interpretations and choices or solutions, and perhaps find a (structural) way to come to a consensus advice for data producers, based on data user's practices.
Maybe even make it the International Activity Transparancy Initiative and open the way to more generic classification vocabularies. Programmes, projects, campaigns, here's a standard for time-bound and place-bound activties with actors, results and financial flows...