Many users of Language, Countries, and Codes (LCC) require flexibility to change the mappings to countries and codes to comply with governmental and corporate guidance (laws, regulations, rules, etc.). The LCC specification should clearly describe how to implement such flexibility.
A potential solution would be to create an annex with an example that shows how this can be done, and that describes the kinds of patterns that the spec encourages people follow to ensure that the reasoning would work for them.
From the RFC,
"In all four (4) cases, implementers may extend any of the LCC ontologies as necessary, to add language or country codes required between releases, or to add application-specific codes needed to address various requirements. Typically such extensions will entail ontology-level conformance. We encourage implementers to submit any requirements for extension to the relevant LCC task force, as appropriate." Chapter 2, page 12.
Others occurrences of this issue in the RFC include:
Country is defined as "in the context of ISO 3166"; and some entities do not use ISO 3166 or not all of ISO 3166. Some use ISO 3166 only indirectly tailored to their own requirements. Similarly with CountryIdentifier and CountrySubdivision. Chapter 4. Terms and Definitions.
The ISO 3166 Country Representations in Section 9.2, 9.3, and elsewhere may present challenges to users that do not strictly use ISO 3166 names and codes.
Table 9-2 Country Representation Ontology Metadata is dependent on ISO 3166, esp. sm:directSource ,
UN and other names are not universally accepted. Table 9-3 Country Representation Ontology Details
This will probably ripple through the other normative and non-normative (informative) deliverables associated with this RFC including RDF/OWL and XMI.
Chapter/Section (additional): 9.4 Ontology: ISO 3166-1 Country Codes