Results - vocabulary attribute option (included 2.03)

Standard Management 2.03 Decimal Upgrade Proposals
#1

Title
Results - add vocabulary attribute

Standard
Activity

Schema Object
Result - vocabulary attribute

Type of Change
allow to use vocabulary at result element level

Issue
Currently indicators can be attributed to a vocabulary, but results can not. More and more a single IATI activity record can simulataneously declare progress against different result frameworks. For instance the Corporate Result framework of the publisher, the Corporate result framework of the donor and the Donor grant agreement result framework.

Proposal
Allow the use of vocabulary attribute at result element level…
By allowing the vocabulary attribute, results are clearly recognisable as belong to one or the other framework, thus reducing result chaos.

Standards Day
discussed between Dutch actors

Links
topic discussed here Vocabulary attribute in Result element version 2.03

#2

I’d like to add here that as @bill_anderson pointed out in the linked discussion it basically means adding the <reference> element also directly under <result>:

result/reference/@code
result/reference/@vocabulary
result/reference/@indicator-uri

Additional issue
When working within partnership programmes, there usually is a shared results framework with standardisation on both result areas and underlying indicators.

At the moment, it is possible to jointly define reference codes for the indicators, to be able to extract “the same indicator” from the data of different organisations.

This is not possible now at the results level (where organisations may be publishing data on different indicators under the same result): organisations have to rely on the exact same spelling of the title of the result.

#3

This topic has been included for consideration in the formal 2.03 proposal

1 Like
#5

One more thought on this subject: when you use a vocabulary at the results level, doesn’t it make the vocabulary on the indicator level superfluous.

In other words shouldn’t there be a rule stating that when you define a vocabulary on either the results level or the indicator level, but not on both levels?

#6

Hi Herman,
I agree, if a result vocabulary is declared/defined than a vocabulary at indicator level is not so meaningful anymore.
When would one declare several indicator vocabularies, if the option of declaring result vocabularies is possible.
In my view declaring the result vocabulary implicates declaring the associated indicator references and logic…

#7

I agree with @Herman that the vocabulary should be either on results or indicator level, not both.

@stolk, If I understood correctly you are not proposing new results vocabularies but just suggesting to use the indicator vocabularies at results level (as @rolfkleef has suggested). In that case, I am not sure if adding the vocabulary at results level would bring any added value. Wouldn’t the indicator attribute sufficient enough to recognize the results element?

#8

@RIza I also agree with @herman to use either result level vocabulary or indicator level vocabulary. My proposal is to allow for the option to declarate result vocabulary at result level. This will clarify to which framework specific results (and associated indicators) belong to and contribute to. So not only indicator can be framework specific, results tend to be too. Declaring the vocabulary at result level facilitates the understanding of the specific results, reading and it is neat, no need to repeat for each related indicator.

1 Like
#9

This proposal has been been included in the 2.03 upgrade. It can be viewed in the following two Discuss posts:

#10