Re: [ubl-lcsc] [code] updated Catalogue and some draft schemas

[Chin Chee-Kai <cheekai@softml.net>]

Thanks for the pointers, Stephen.


>>The last meeting included a discussion about our 
>>previous meeting's decisions
>>
>>1) to add the names and descriptions to the codes in 
>>codelists  

in the codelists schemas you mean?  Yeah, that's to
annotate the code values.  We haven't yet have discussion
on that I think, or perhaps I missed that during the
calls.  To have inline annotations of the values in the
schemas, we might end up implementing those inline 
descriptions as comment blocks placed next to the 
values they individually describe.

The layout of that description also hasn't been discussed
I believe.

As to the impact on CLC, it might mean we need several more
columns to hold different aspects of descriptions, eg.
short description, long description, etc.



>>2) to include the descriptions in the catalogue 
>>spreadsheet

Oh, yep, related to my response in (1).



>>3) to somehow include the description from 2) in the 
>>codelist schemas.

Oops, I've responded more than (1) above.  My initial
thoughts were written above.



>>Tim and Jon particularly discussed this and decided 
>>that we need to realign with our Montreal conclusion 
>>about the scope of the codelist team and LCSC 
>>codelist work, so

Sounds good.



>>1) the latter would just need to concentrate on 
>>producing enumerated lists of codes themselves 

Yes, with an eye towards consistency in the overall
architecture when one steps back and looks at all
the UBL code list schemas as a whole.  There should be
some consistency in implementation across all of them
even though this might be a tough job given that each
code list might be culled from external agencies who
have their own independent ways of implementing code
list schemas, value representations, conventions etc.



>>2) the schemas should just include these codes 
>>themselves at present (a Codelist SC will be proposed 
>>by Jon at the San Francisco TC plenary to deal with the wider issues)

This is great.  Yes, I think elevating it to a
CodeList SC would be a very logical next step after the
task force.  It sounds like Liaison SC might be included?
The external agencies are agencies outside UBL afterall
aren't they?




>>3) the information gathered and produced on the 
>>descriptions of codes should be preserved for later 
>>in the spreadsheet

Phew, it sounds like we would have one spreadsheet
per code list to do just that.




>>The result is that for now the tool shouldn't include 
>>any treatment of the descriptions of the codes, just 
>>of the codes themselves (the enumerated lists). 

Ok.



>>This is to avoid committing UBL to a particular solution 
>>to the issues we've been raising beyond what was 
>>decided already in Montreal.

Sure.



>>I hope this doesn't require inconvenient adjustments 
>>yet again for you Chee-Kai at this stage. It does 
>>allow us though to concentrate our efforts for now to 
>>the smaller agreed area of codelist implementation, 
>>leaving the wider issues to a further phase after the 
>>beta release.

Yes, I fully agree with that approach.  There's more
things that we're all uncovering regarding the various
aspects of codelist implementations.  But having a stable
release at this point is certainly more important than
continuously refining something to the point of perfection.



>>Another output from the last LCSC call will be a 
>>draft 13 model with a few minor but important changes 
>>(three changes resulting from the codelst work). I'll 
>>update and send you the model this weekend sometime 
>>for your conversion to schemas. 

Ok, but my schedule might not allow me time to run things
in time for Tuesday to send the schemas, especially if 
there're changes in the structure or interpretations of
the columns of CLC.  But I'll give it a try.




>>I hope this all makes sense.

Yes, they do  :)



Best Regards,
Chin Chee-Kai
SoftML
Tel: +65-6820-2979
Fax: +65-6743-7875
Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net
http://SoftML.Net/