| [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author |
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@mitre.org 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@forums.cim3.net >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)
Attachment:
UBL-LCSC_Code-Identifier-Definitive.doc
Description: MS-Word document