1. OMG Mailing List
  2. Languages, Countries and Codes Specification 1.1 RTF

Open Issues

  • Issues not resolved
  • Name: lcc-rtf
  • Issues Count: 14

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
LCC11-29 sameAs links missing between some Subdivisions and Countries LCC 1.0 open
LCC11-24 The addition of the language tags (LCC-2) introduced a logical inconsistency that must be corrected LCC 1.0 open
LCC11-12 Annex B lists the country region code ontologies as normative, but a few of these have changed since the 1.0 release LCC 1.0 open
LCC11-26 Specification and Module files do not link to their parts LCC 1.0 open
LCC11-19 Create metadata files for LCC version 1.1 LCC 1.0 open
LCC11-10 Revise the Overview section of the specification to support the current approach to representation of the standards LCC 1.0 open
LCC11-8 Definitions of Languages in 3166-2 ontology refer to language codes LCC 1.0 open
LCC11-9 In country SB, URI for region type clashes with that of an actual region LCC 1.0 open
LCC11-11 URIs defined in the LCC specification need to be revised from http to https LCC 1.0 open
LCC11-3 The language and country codes have been updated by ISO and should be revised accordingly in LCC LCC 1.0 open
LCC11-4 Provide capability to reference countries and regions using their code LCC 1.0 open
LCC11-2 There is a request for us to add the language tags to the natural language specific properties for language codes LCC 1.0 open
LCC11-7 There are cases that are syntactically incorrect in the country codes ontology with respect to having both language tags and a datatype of xsd:string LCC 1.0 open
LCC11-1 The conformance section of the specification is weak LCC 1.0b1 open

Issues Descriptions

sameAs links missing between some Subdivisions and Countries

  • Key: LCC11-29
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    There are 7 gaps where the ontology is missing sameAs links where a subdivision of one country has a country code in its own right. The comments in the ISO XML file make clear that these should be linked but the XML file is missing the <subdivision-related-country> elements that normally (in the 22 other cases) accompany such comments, and which the automated processing relied on.
    The gaps are for:
    CN/TaiwanSheng
    CN-HongKongSAR
    CN/MacaoSAR
    FR/Guyane
    FR/Martinique
    NO/JanMayen
    NO/Svalbard

  • Reported: LCC 1.0 — Tue, 5 Mar 2019 19:57 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 12:05 GMT
  • Attachments:

The addition of the language tags (LCC-2) introduced a logical inconsistency that must be corrected

  • Key: LCC11-24
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    Adding the language tags to the individuals created an inconsistency when running a reasoner over the set of ontologies that include the reference data. This is due to the fact that one cannot use a language tag with a datatype property whose range is xsd:string in OWL 2 / RDF 1.1. Rather, the range must be either rdfs:Literal or rdf:langString in order to tag individuals with a particular language.

    The language tags are quite useful, and were requested by the LCC user community, so the correction needs to be made to the LanguageRepresentation and CountryRepresentation ontologies to enable use of the tags.

  • Reported: LCC 1.0 — Wed, 20 Feb 2019 02:49 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:46 GMT
  • Attachments:

Annex B lists the country region code ontologies as normative, but a few of these have changed since the 1.0 release

  • Key: LCC11-12
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    The set of URIs and country names should be updated to reflect the latest set of countries and related region ontologies per the U.N. revisions (e.g., Eswatini, formerly Swaziland) in Annex B; the reference to the ODM XMI and UML XMI at the end of the annex should be updated per the decision not to include these artifacts as a part of the specification, though they can be generated from the RDF/XML as needed for any implementation.

  • Reported: LCC 1.0 — Tue, 19 Feb 2019 18:04 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:22 GMT

Specification and Module files do not link to their parts

  • Key: LCC11-26
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The Specification file AboutLCC should link to the module files AboutLanguages and About Countries and each should link to their ontologies, all using dct:hasPart (as per FIBO)

  • Reported: LCC 1.0 — Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:15 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:22 GMT
  • Attachments:

Create metadata files for LCC version 1.1


Revise the Overview section of the specification to support the current approach to representation of the standards

  • Key: LCC11-10
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    The current version of the specification breaks the country codes for regions up into individual ontologies by region, and includes the U.N. M49 macro region codes, which are quite useful for implementations that only need a subset of the region codes. This should be reflected in the specification.

    In addition, a sentence should be added at the end of the overview that states that there is no need, based on feedback from the user community, to provide the ODM XMI or UML XMI for the ontologies containing individuals for regions, only for the primary ontologies and country codes. Thus, the LCC 1.1 specification no longer includes those artifacts.

    Minor language issues, such as the use of the term 'trigraph' and wrong reference to '630-4' rather than '639-4' in that section should also be corrected.

  • Reported: LCC 1.0 — Tue, 19 Feb 2019 17:52 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:22 GMT

Definitions of Languages in 3166-2 ontology refer to language codes

  • Key: LCC11-8
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The definitions for ALL the Languages in 639-2 say "Language code for X language", rather than "X language". The question is what to do when it's a family. We don't want to say "Batak languages language". The proposal is to say X family if it's of class LanguageFamily e.g. Batak languages family".

  • Reported: LCC 1.0 — Tue, 19 Feb 2019 07:59 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:22 GMT
  • Attachments:

In country SB, URI for region type clashes with that of an actual region

  • Key: LCC11-9
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The region/type has URI of &lcc-3166-2-sb;CapitalTerritory.
    Since the full namefor the subdivision is "Capital Territory (Honiara)" the proposal is to make the URI into &lcc-3166-2-sb;CapitalTerritoryHoniara.

  • Reported: LCC 1.0 — Tue, 19 Feb 2019 08:03 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:22 GMT
  • Attachments:

URIs defined in the LCC specification need to be revised from http to https

  • Key: LCC11-11
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    This changes the set of canonical URIs in Table 7.2 and elsewhere in the text of the standard as well as in the machine-readable files.

  • Reported: LCC 1.0 — Tue, 19 Feb 2019 17:56 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:22 GMT
  • Attachments:

The language and country codes have been updated by ISO and should be revised accordingly in LCC

  • Key: LCC11-3
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    The LCC language codes should be maintained on a regular basis when such changes are made by the Library of Congress (the registration authority for the language codes for ISO 639-2).

    The country codes should also be maintained on a regular basis when revised by the UN / ISO working group.

    This applies strictly to the machine readable files.

  • Reported: LCC 1.0 — Fri, 4 May 2018 23:53 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:22 GMT
  • Attachments:

Provide capability to reference countries and regions using their code

  • Key: LCC11-4
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Many external datasets reference countries using their 2 character code. These can be very large sets (e.g. the GLEIF dataset which covers more than a million legal entities, each with a jurisdiction and up to 5 addresses).
    To transform them to RDF referencing the Country in LCC requires a reverse lookup of the code to find the LCC URI which is based on the country name. For conversion of large sets this could be very expensive. It would be far more convenient to have a URI based on the code which could be used in the dataset with no lookup needed. I have already generated such a set of URIs with sameAs triples linking them to the normative LCC URIs.
    The problem is worse for region codes where the reverse lookup would need to be in one of 200 different ontologies (one per country). I have generated a single file of sameAs triples covering all the regions.

    Rather than people such as myself independently doing this on an ad hoc basis, these 2 files should be officially published by OMG as an optional part of LCC.

  • Reported: LCC 1.0 — Wed, 6 Feb 2019 18:18 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:22 GMT
  • Attachments:

There is a request for us to add the language tags to the natural language specific properties for language codes

  • Key: LCC11-2
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    ISO639-1-LanguageCodes.rdf: add lang tags to
    lcc-lr:hasEnglishName
    lcc-lr:hasFrenchName
    lcc-lr:hasGermanName

    Note: this applies to the machine readable files primarily.

  • Reported: LCC 1.0 — Fri, 4 May 2018 23:50 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:22 GMT
  • Attachments:

There are cases that are syntactically incorrect in the country codes ontology with respect to having both language tags and a datatype of xsd:string

  • Key: LCC11-7
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Elisa Kendall)
  • Summary:

    According to the RDF specification, a string can be typed as xsd:string if it does not contain a language tag, but must be typed rdf:langString if it includes a language tag. See https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf-schema-20140225/#ch_langstring for details.

    Currently, our country codes ontologies (those including the named individuals) have both a language tag and are typed as xsd:string, for various hasName properties, which should be corrected.

    This applies strictly to the machine readable files, with no impact on the specification document itself.

  • Reported: LCC 1.0 — Fri, 15 Feb 2019 22:10 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:22 GMT
  • Attachments:

The conformance section of the specification is weak

  • Key: LCC11-1
  • 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: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:22 GMT