LCC 1.0 FTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

LCC_ — The conformance section of the specification is weak

  • Key: LCC_-18
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    There are a number of issues with the conformance section of the specification, including, but not limited to:

    (1). The following conformance point is not a complete sentence (if you ignore what's in parens): it ends “formally imports” without saying what.
    1. Specification-level conformance with the RDF/OWL ontologies, which means that the subject application formally imports (i.e., through owl:imports statements in another ontology or via loading the full set of ontologies for reference in a knowledge base that supports RDF/OWL);

    And the above duplicates the 2nd para labeled (1), so the duplication should be eliminated.

    (2) The use of “may not” in points 2 and 3 is ambiguous since it could be taken as meaning “shall not”. “Might not” would be clearer. And it’s compounded by the fact that we say ontology-level conformance entails linked-data-conformance but not that specification-level entails ontology-level.

    (3) Conformance point 3 seems pretty weak – could an application contain one LCC URL to be conformant? Does it even need to be derefenceable? Is this email conformant because I include http://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/ISO3166-1-CountryCodes/Albania ? Or does it need to be the ontology itself i.e. http://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/ISO3166-1-CountryCodes/ ?

    (4) Maybe we should be saying something about applications that allow people to establish and follow links to LCC individuals, and continue to follow the links within LCC?

    (5) We also need to define “subject application”: is it an application or another (set of) ontologies that are conformant? Is FIBO conformant? Also item 4 refers to “another UML model”.

  • Reported: LCC 1.0b1 — Mon, 21 Aug 2017 17:27 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:33 GMT