RE: [ontolog] UBL proposals for codesets?
Mike,
Yes, the code
list value is an 'index into a code set', and yes, the burden for understanding
the semantics of a code lies with the code set, and not with an individual
code. X12, UN/CEFACT, and UBL all recognize the need to clearly identify
the code set and code set owner. Unfortunately, these existing code
sets do not lead to an ontology that explains the semantics behind the
codes.
Cheers,
Bob
Hi All,
This is an
interesting difference of opinion on the meaning of a code in a
code
set. I do not believe you associate the semantics with the code
itself
but with the code set or list. In other words, the code is
just an index
into a code set. So, I would say that the burden for
understanding the
semantics of a code lies with the code set and not with
an individual
code. The only burden a user of the code has (in terms
of semantics)
would be to properly refer to its code set. In turn,
the code set, should
refer to an ontology that explains the semantics
behind the codes.
Just my 2 cents,
- Mike
In a message
dated 10/28/2002 9:03:00 AM US Mountain Standard Time, Robert.Miller@gxs.com
writes:
"A code is a representation
of some thing, normally text, abbreviating it to a shortened, encoded form,
and usually of the same consistent lenght within a code list. In
essence it is an abbreviation."
The implication
I have read from this definition is that the 'text' the code represents is
the end of the line, from a semantic viewpoint. But the reality is
that the code is a pointer to a collection of semantic information, at least
some of which is likely to be of semantic significance to the application
processing the information in which the code is imbedded. I've studied
the existing X12 code lists at some length, and have yet to find a code list
that does not identify semantic properties beyond that of the 'text' used to
describe the code.
----------------------------------------------------
Michael
C. Daconta
Director, Web & Technology
Services
www.mcbrad.com