> Miller: I've no problem with making a distinction among collections of
> values represented in our standards by code list values. In
> particular, I accept the 'instance' concept of an identifier.
> Because identifiers represent instances, and instances tend to be
> volatile, many (perhaps most) identifiers are not (or can not
> practically be) coded. But a few, like country and currency codes,
> are coded.
mm1: This is a key discriminator and is fairly consistent with what you
see happening in the definition and use of code lists. There are a few
derived code types that are being defined that are more specific but I
believe are consistent with above. (01)
> Denno: Then the specification editor needs to record the definitions
> provided by the
> victors. Otherwise the rest of us can't get our jobs done, and nobody
> will be
> able to implement this correctly.
mm1: Minor non-technical point, it may be easy to criticize when you
have not been engaged in the substantive and productive work on code
lists. Substantial progress has been made, even though some new
observers may find it confusing. People are implementing it; UBL is a
prime example. And, they are working on a code list recommendation that
was supported by input from many organizations including NIST (effort
started in eBSC - reference Mark Palmer brief to Ontolog 26 October).
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 (03)