 |
 |
There’s a change by change summary of the December 2017 DAC codelist updates here: https://github.com/datasets/dac-crs-codes/pull/40
The diff is here (so you can see exactly what changed): https://github.com/datasets/dac-crs-codes/pull/40/files
This is all consistent with the self-declared changes on the ‘web link’ page of the XLS file.
Using https://github.com/IATI/IATI-Codelists-NonEmbedded/pull/172, I’ve created a pull request with the relevant codelist changes for IATI:
I just noticed an update - http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/dacandcrscodelists.htm - and this time there’s the codelists in XML, too…
@stevieflow Yes, the DAC have now added the codelist in XML format, following a number of conversations we had with them. I have just sent some feedback on the codelist - one codelist was missing and the XML still requires a few changes to comply with the IATI XML schema. Once the changes have been made and we are happy that the file meets the IATI codelist schema, I will post again in here.
I’m very cautiously optimistic, but I haven’t checked or tested anything yet!
Meeting the schema is good. Another really important check is: Does the data in the XML match the data in the XLS? Because it’s important to note: the DAC publishing XML codelists is not new – they’ve been doing that for a long time. But the DAC publishing XML that is consistent with the XLS would be new – and a really fantastic step forward.
I remember from @dalepotter’s post on this topic:
If the DAC did manage to implement it in this way – with both versions generated automatically from the same source – then that would be a massive plus to helping ensure the reliability of the published XML.
It was explained to me that the xml is being generated directly from the main database and should therefore be authoritative.
Looking good - thanks @petyakangalova and @IATI-techteam
Just linking up with a GitHub thread where there’s some discussion about the DAC Channel Codes list (ie the list of of Organisations originally published as an IATI codelist). If the XML output from DAC is synched up, then this can be the list for all relevant XM-DAC listings.
There is a persistence problem. In DACland you can be a recipient one year and a donor the next.
I’ve made a start at comparing the XLS and XML. My work in progress findings are here: https://gist.github.com/andylolz/3962f25d7d8ef5b0675029cfe04fbf72
As mentioned, the additional flow type in the XML (38) seems like a bit of a worry.
Could we compare notes? E.g. was the missing codelist this one?
But you’d persist if you were on the channel code list?
While I didn’t find any other big anomalies, there are a lot of small inconsistencies (capitalisation; spacing; small differences in translation) that suggest the source for the two datasets might be different.
Just to expand on the flow type issue: the XML includes the following two flow types:
37 (Other Private flows at market terms - Banks)38 (Other Private flows at market terms - Non-banks)The XLS doesn’t include 38, but does include:
37 (Other Private flows at market terms)So not only is 38 present in the XML but not the XLS, but I’d also wonder whether 37 might mean something different in the two versions?
These codelist updates have now been approved and merged.
The changes haven’t been deployed yet, so they’re not reflected on the iatistandard.org website.
Once the changes are on iatistandard.org, I guess the title of this post can be prefixed with “[Added]” and the post can be locked.