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)
>All,
>
>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
>database.
>
>Thanks!
>Leo
>
>--
>_____________________________________________
>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)
--
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228 fax: +618 93352142 (07)
UBL-LCSC_Code-Identifier-Definitive.doc
Description: MS-Word document
|