[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog] UBL proposals for codesets?

To: ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:44:52 +0800
Message-id: <3DBC9694.30207@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
As far as distinguishing codes from identifiers, for the present we have 
adopted the position as outlined in the attached paper.  This conforms 
to your definition of a code.    (01)

In terms of how we intend codesets to be implemented we have a technical 
solution as given in the paper...
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/ndrsc/current/wd-ublndrsc-codelist-01.pdf    (02)

We are also establishing preferred codesets for many of the codes 
defined in the vocabulary.  For example, ISO 639 is the recommended code 
for languages.    (03)

I personally see the choice of codeset as secondary to the semantics of 
the object itself.  That is, we need to understand what a language is 
and when to use it before we determine the appropriate codesets .  This 
is more problematic when we qualify an object with a 'type' that is 
coded - what do we mean by 'type'?  For example, in UBL we have a Type 
entity within an Order document, is this the type of document (e.g. 
Order, Invoice, Response) or is it a type of Order (Standing, Reverse, 
One-off, etc..).  It is this ambiguity that creates more problems than 
the choice of codeset. If someone uses 'GB' as opposed to 'UK' as their 
country code - at least we know they are talking about the same thing 
(roughly).  In these cases it is often a simple transformation - a 
process most business do anyway for their internal to external code 
conversions.      (04)

Leo Obrst wrote:    (05)

>We had a discussion at the UBL workshop back in June about codesets (and
>also identifiers) and how UBL should or would handle these. Has there
>been additional discussion on this, or any guidelines established, etc.?
>If so, can you point me to a document?
>By codes and codesets I mean: a code is a shorthand for some concept,
>e.g., a two- or three-character representation for a specific country.
>Another example: the two-character US state code representing (and
>abbreviating) the state, e.g., ME for Maine. In general, a code is an
>abbreviation, a more compact representation for a concept (to minimize
>storage as opposed to maximizing human readability/interpretation).
>One of the issues in ontologies and business of course is that often
>these codes (and different, possibly conflicting codesets) are used
>willy-nilly as the only representation for the concept or in the
>Dr. Leo Obrst  The MITRE Corporation
>mailto:lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
>Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640
>Fax: 703-883-1379       McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
>To post messages mailto:ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>An archive of the [ontolog] forum can be found
>at http://ontolog.cim3.org/forums/ontolog
>    (06)

tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142     (07)

Attachment: UBL-LCSC_Code-Identifier-Definitive.doc
Description: MS-Word document

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>