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

Open Issues

  • Issues not resolved
  • Name: lcc-rtf
  • Issues Count: 3

Issues Descriptions

The language codes were updated by the registration authority on 12/21/2017 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.

    This applies strictly to the machine readable files.

  • Reported: LCC 1.0 — Fri, 4 May 2018 23:53 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 4 May 2018 23:53 GMT

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: Fri, 4 May 2018 23:50 GMT

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: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:33 GMT