1. OMG Mailing List
  2. Languages, Countries and Codes 1.1 Finalization Task Force

All Issues

  • All Issues
  • Name: lcc-ftf
  • Issues Count: 19

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
LCC_-24 Language identifiers for alpha-3 codes should be subclasses of language identifier LCC 1.0b1 open
LCC_-3 Several changes from newsletter IV-14 not reflected LCC 1.0b1 open
LCC_-5 Missing full name for Papua New Guinea LCC 1.0b1 open
LCC_-6 Outdated full name for Somalia LCC 1.0b1 open
LCC_-4 Flexibility to comply with governmental & corporate guidance. LCC 1.0b1 open
LCC_-1 The class called ApproximateCoordinates is not well defined and needs properties associated with it LCC 1.0b1 open
LCC_-11 Including all subdivision codes in a single ontology is not workable - they should be separated into distinct namespaces / ontologies for ease of use LCC 1.0b1 open
LCC_-8 The individual representing the Canadian Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is misnamed LCC 1.0b1 open
LCC_-31 Equivalent class restrictions in the language representation ontology cause performance challenges LCC 1.0b1 open
LCC_-16 The United Nations Standard country or area codes for statistical use (M49) are needed to define regions for FIBO support LCC 1.0b1 open
LCC_-18 The conformance section of the specification is weak LCC 1.0b1 open
LCC_-32 The about files for LCC should be brought up to date LCC 1.0b1 open
LCC_-7 The spec should document the process for maintaining currency LCC 1.0b1 open
LCC_-12 Need to include rdfs:isDefinedBy for every first class ontology element for cases where users load the ontology into a knowledge graph LCC 1.0b1 open
LCC_-14 The tags used on identifiers in the LCC ontologies are unnecessarily complex LCC 1.0b1 open
LCC_-13 The language codes in the 639-2 ontology are missing URI references LCC 1.0b1 open
LCC_-15 The definition of writing system in the language representation ontology is incomplete LCC 1.0b1 open
LCC_-2 The spec and OWL should indicate which version of ISO specs is reflected LCC 1.0b1 open
LCC_-10 Definition for denotes and hasDenotation should better reflect ISO 1087 / 11179 LCC 1.0a1 open

Issues Descriptions

Language identifiers for alpha-3 codes should be subclasses of language identifier

  • Key: LCC_-24
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Currently, all alpha-3 language identifiers are subclasses of alpha-3 code, but are not direct subclasses of language identifier. This may be misleading for users of the ontology.

    In addition, some of the definitions for kinds of language identifiers should be more tightly constrained, for example, an individual language identifier should be equivalent to something that identifies an individual language, rather than simply a subclass of that restriction.

  • Reported: LCC 1.0b1 — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:42 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 00:03 GMT
  • Attachments:

Several changes from newsletter IV-14 not reflected




Flexibility to comply with governmental & corporate guidance.

  • Key: LCC_-4
  • Status: open   Implementation work Blocked
  • Source: Office of the Secretary of Defense ( Leonard Levine)
  • Summary:

    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

  • Reported: LCC 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:22 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 00:03 GMT
  • Attachments:

The class called ApproximateCoordinates is not well defined and needs properties associated with it

  • Key: LCC_-1
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    In fact, what this class should be called is something like GeographicArea, and then provide a means by which one can add multiple points, such as longitude and latitude to that area.

    We also need to incorporate the concept of Continent, which would be a child of GeographicArea so that we can divide the subdivisions of countries into continents to support evolution and management of those subdivisions.

  • Reported: LCC 1.0b1 — Thu, 2 Mar 2017 20:46 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 00:03 GMT
  • Attachments:

Including all subdivision codes in a single ontology is not workable - they should be separated into distinct namespaces / ontologies for ease of use

  • Key: LCC_-11
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Currently, the set of subdivision codes available in LCC (which only reflect North America) are all in one namespace and ontology. They should be split into an ontology per country containing the relevant regions for ease of use and maintenance purposes.

  • Reported: LCC 1.0b1 — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 01:24 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 00:03 GMT
  • Attachments:

The individual representing the Canadian Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is misnamed

  • Key: LCC_-8
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    The concept in the ISO 3166-2 subdivision codes ontology for the Canadian Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is misnamed as simply Newfoundland. Also, the Canadian Territory of Nunavut should be represented and is missing.

  • Reported: LCC 1.0b1 — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 20:11 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 00:03 GMT

Equivalent class restrictions in the language representation ontology cause performance challenges


The United Nations Standard country or area codes for statistical use (M49) are needed to define regions for FIBO support

  • Key: LCC_-16
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    The Standard country or area codes for statistical use (M49) include geographic regions, such as continents, regions that are smaller than continents but larger than countries, and sub-regions, all of which are used for statistical reporting to the International Monetary Fund, among other uses. M49 codes integrate the ISO 3166 country codes and assign them to relevant regions or sub-regions (e.g., continents, sub-continents, etc.) which are needed for regulatory / statistical reporting purposes, among other uses.

  • Reported: LCC 1.0b1 — Sun, 20 Aug 2017 19:31 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 00:03 GMT
  • Attachments:

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: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 00:03 GMT

The about files for LCC should be brought up to date

  • Key: LCC_-32
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    The about files and related module descriptions in the specification should be brought in line with the rest of the changes in the FTF report (primarily with respect to version IRIs).

  • Reported: LCC 1.0b1 — Thu, 31 Aug 2017 18:24 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 00:03 GMT

The spec should document the process for maintaining currency

  • Key: LCC_-7
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    There should be an annex to explain the approach to reflecting updates from ISO e.g. subscribing to ISO notifications and raising issues reflecting the changes. There should also be targets for frequency/lead time/

  • Reported: LCC 1.0b1 — Fri, 11 Nov 2016 02:28 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 00:03 GMT
  • Attachments:

Need to include rdfs:isDefinedBy for every first class ontology element for cases where users load the ontology into a knowledge graph

  • Key: LCC_-12
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    For ease of use in certain applications where "follow your nose" does not work, such as for ontologies loaded into a knowledge graph, it is helpful to have an rdfs:isDefinedBy statement for every first class entity. The object for the triple should be the IRI of the ontology that contains the entity (i.e., all classes, properties, and individuals).

  • Reported: LCC 1.0b1 — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 01:38 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:25 GMT

The tags used on identifiers in the LCC ontologies are unnecessarily complex


The language codes in the 639-2 ontology are missing URI references

  • Key: LCC_-13
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    They assume the default (or local base) URI and should include an explicit reference.

  • Reported: LCC 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 20:58 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:25 GMT

The definition of writing system in the language representation ontology is incomplete

  • Key: LCC_-15
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Writing system should be a subclass of arrangement, and should include relationships with the orthography and script for the system.

  • Reported: LCC 1.0b1 — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:54 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:25 GMT
  • Attachments:

The spec and OWL should indicate which version of ISO specs is reflected

  • Key: LCC_-2
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    People should be able to easily discover which updates have been incorporated already.

  • Reported: LCC 1.0b1 — Fri, 11 Nov 2016 02:26 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:25 GMT

Definition for denotes and hasDenotation should better reflect ISO 1087 / 11179

  • Key: LCC_-10
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    The definitions for these properties are not identical to those under development for the MVF submission, which provides better correlation to the ISO standards. If the LCC definitions are revised, then MVF can simply reuse the LCC ontologies rather than creating new, incompatible definitions.

  • Reported: LCC 1.0a1 — Fri, 16 Jun 2017 20:58 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:25 GMT