>>I've also attached a paper from Mike Adcock, now deceased, who wrote
>>about the quandry about code and identifier. A lot has been done and
>>debated since this was produced in June 2002. As a final note, if it is
>>a real world object, the representation term is used instead (if memory
>>serves me correctly) not the Code. Type. Thanks.
>Wallace: I had a look at the attached document. The best that can be said of
>is that the examples may help us infer the distinction that the authors
>failed to describe. From the examples it seems that Codes can be aliases
>for attribute values whereas Identifiers are attribute values which can be
>used to denote object instances (or occurences, but NONE of the identified
>things in the examples are occurences).
>Of course, Codes are attribute values as well. My guess is that they wish to
>think of these aliases as identifiers for the Identifiers, although one
>could think of them as Identifiers where some naming context is needed to
>uniquely identify objects using them. The only "real" difference between
>this and what they call Identifier is that the context is explicitly
>defined and the values and their mappings should be in a repository somewhere.
mm1: It may sound simple and one may reason that the types are the same
or directly similar....but you've not seen the debate over the last
three years that would indicate otherwise. It is a religion of sorts
that they are different even though often misused and assumed the same.
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (02)