Code lists should be published separately

[dr-shorthair]

The codelists for ISO 19115 were added to the repository in 2017 with edaed84

They were removed in 2019 with 665fa0b as part of a general refresh of the ontologies, but the codelists are no longer available as separate files. The resources (Concepts, ConceptSchemes, Collections) are buried away inside the RDF/XML files, and cannot be dereferenced from their URIs.

This makes them very difficult to refer to, to find, and to work with.

[dr-shorthair]

FWIW I had published copies here: http://registry.it.csiro.au/def/isotc211 in 2016, pending their appearance on an official site.

[nicholascar]

Please see this test delivery of one set of terms - roles - from one standard: https://github.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/tree/master/experimental.

It is valid SKOS form and has been machine-validated against a formal profile of SKOS (the so-called VocPub profile for simple, single vocabulary publication).

Any comments you have on this form of TC vocabs/code lists/taxonomic representations of standards' classes would be useful.