Thanks for the update and the pointers, Tim! (01)
Tim McGrath wrote: (03)
> 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.
> 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.
> 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:
> >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
> tim mcgrath
> fremantle western australia 6160
> phone: +618 93352228 fax: +618 93352142
> UBL-LCSC_Code-Identifier-Definitive.doc Type: Microsoft Word
> Encoding: base64
> Download Status: Not downloaded
>with message (04)
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 (05)
To post messages mailto:ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
An archive of the [ontolog] forum can be found
at http://ontolog.cim3.org/forums/ontolog (06)