Open timgdavies opened 6 years ago
My preference is for option (2), as this means systems have a clear predicable set of values before the first dash, and it is easier to be consistent across countries.
It makes sense that there is a consistent approach to using (or not using) subnational codes in the jurisdiction code part of the list code.
My immediate preference is for (2), but with a small reservation. It hinges on whether there is the potential that there could be a type of list that is repeatable across many sub-national divisions: e.g. each of 10 regional jurisdictions in Canada has a corporate register held individually. If the jurisdiction code part were 2-digit only, you would need to differentiate the list name part ten times.
I know that in the Canada example, all those company registers have quite different names. The problem would only be likely where each subnational register had a very similar name.
I appreciate that this differentiation could be done by giving guidance to use the subnational ISO code in the list name part. Would that result in too inconsistent an approach?
As an addendum to this, I think that we can also make changes to the Schema, depending on the option chosen, to update the List Code property with validation keywords (for maxLength
and also string pattern
)
The handbook for org-id.guide states that:
A dash is used to separate these components. The documentation then says "For any list which contains entries only from a given country, the ISO 2-digit country code should be used." but does not say anything about sub-national jurisdiction codes from ISO-3166:2.
Looking at our current data, we see two practices present. For example:
CA_PE-PEI-IPE
GB-SC
We should either:
Comments on this are invited over the next two weeks.