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...
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
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
fremantle western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228 fax: +618 93352142 (07)
Description: MS-Word document