The international standard nosology of occupational disease: the **List of occupational diseases (revised 2010)**, annexed to the List of Occupational Diseases Recommendation, 2002 (No. 194) of the International Labour Organization. The 2010 revision was approved by the ILO Governing Body on 25 March 2010 at its 307th Session, on the basis of two tripartite Meetings of Experts (2005 and 2009), and replaced the list adopted in 2002. This is the closest thing that exists to a globally sanctioned nosology of work-related disease. Recommendation No. 194 asks member States to establish a national list of occupational diseases for prevention, recording, notification and compensation, comprising "to the extent possible" the diseases in this annex; national schedules are therefore derived from it, and it is the common denominator across them. It is a *recognition* instrument rather than a mechanistic one — an item asserts that a causal link between a work exposure and a disease is established well enough to be recognised, which is exactly the claim dismech wants to record when it classifies an entry as occupational. **The list is biaxial, and dismech models that as two enums.** The instrument has four sections built on two different organising principles: - Section 1 ("caused by exposure to agents arising from work activities") and section 3.1 ("Cancer caused by the following agents") index by **causative agent** — the item names the agent, e.g. "Diseases caused by benzene or its homologues". - Section 2 ("by target organ systems") and section 4 ("Other diseases") index by **the disease itself** — the item names a clinical entity, e.g. "Asthma caused by recognized sensitizing agents", "Miners' nystagmus". Because the axes are orthogonal, one disease legitimately takes an item from each: occupational asthma from isocyanates is both 1.1.35 (agent) and 2.1.7 (disease). Collapsing both axes into one enum would make it impossible for the schema to say which axis a value belongs to, so the values are split into ``ILOCausativeAgentEnum`` (sections 1 and 3) and ``ILODiseaseCategoryEnum`` (sections 2 and 4), reached by two distinct slots that share a presentational ``slot_group``. This is the opposite of the ISDS nosology's rule, where a disorder is listed once by construction; do not carry the ISDS "assign exactly one" habit over to this instrument. Two consequences of the split a curator should know: - **The ILO's contiguous item numbering is spread across two enums.** Items 1.x and 3.x live in ``ILOCausativeAgentEnum``; items 2.x and 4.x live in ``ILODiseaseCategoryEnum``. Each value records its item number verbatim at the head of its ``description``, so a number lookup still works, but you cannot assume one enum holds the whole list. - **Placing sections 3 and 4 is dismech's reading, not the ILO's.** The instrument presents four sections, not two axes. Section 3.1 is put on the agent axis because its own title indexes by agent; section 4 is put on the disease axis because its one named item is a clinical entity. If that reading is ever revised, the affected values move between enums. Two wrinkles in the instrument itself, reproduced rather than tidied: - **Section 1.3 names diseases, not agents.** Its title, "Biological agents and infectious or parasitic diseases", acknowledges the hybrid, and its items are Brucellosis, Tetanus, Tuberculosis and so on. It stays on the agent axis because the ILO places it under section 1. - **Both slots stay multivalued**, because more than one item from a single axis is normal: silicosis takes both 2.1.1 (pneumoconiosis) and 2.1.2 (silicotuberculosis). Open items. Every subsection ends with an "open item" (1.1.41, 1.2.7, 1.3.9, 2.1.12, 2.2.4, 2.3.8, 2.4.2, 3.1.21, 4.2) permitting recognition of a disease the list does not name, where a direct link to work exposure is established scientifically. These are transcribed as real permissible values because the instrument uses them substantively, but they are a weak assignment: prefer a specific item, and when using an open item say in ``notes`` what the agent or disease actually was. Mental and behavioural disorders (2.4) and the musculoskeletal section were new in the 2010 revision — the first time the ILO list named a mental disorder (post-traumatic stress disorder) explicitly. Curation guidance for dismech: - Assign only when the disease is genuinely recognised as occupational in origin, not merely because an exposure exists. Lead poisoning from a contaminated water supply is not ILO 1.1.8; lead poisoning in a smelter worker is. - A disease that occurs both occupationally and non-occupationally (asthma, COPD, mesothelioma, hearing loss) still takes the item — the assignment records that an occupational form is recognised, not that every case is occupational. Say which in ``notes``. - Record provenance in ``notes``: the revision (2010), the item number, and the item text where it differs from the dismech entry name. As with ICIMD and ISDS, this is a definitional taxonomy mapping, not an empirical disease claim, so ``notes`` is preferred over a manufactured evidence ``snippet``. - Pair with ``harrisons_chapter`` — usually ``ENVIRONMENTAL_EXPOSURES``, ``POISONING_ENVENOMATION``, or the relevant organ-system Part. Item numbers here ARE stable within the 2010 revision and are what national law and statistical reporting cite. They are NOT stable across revisions (the 2002 list numbered differently), which is why, following the repo convention established by ``ISDSNosologyGroupEnum``, numbers are not part of any permissible-value key.