Re: [ubl] Genericode files and URIs naming rules

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

Thank you, Roberto, for your continued input on these issues.

At 2006-08-30 07:59 +0200, roberto@javest.com wrote:
>this is a question for the new Code List TC.

Actually, you have correctly directed your 
question to the "code list task group" of the UBL 
TC ... though we haven't formally named them as 
such I've been distinguishing the "UBL code list 
task group" and the "UBL customization task 
group" as informal projects within UBL without 
formal subcommittees formed such as "UBL Small 
Business Subcommittee (SBSC)" or "Human Interface 
Subcommittee (HISC)".  To me, the task groups are 
just collections of interested parties within the 
full TC that "report" to and through the full TC.

The "new Code List TC" referenced in the Pacific 
call minutes is a separate OASIS Technical 
Committee, the Code List Representation TC (CLRTC):

   http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=codelist

We've had a very successful inaugural meeting and 
we are hoping to move quickly through the OASIS 
process of bringing genericode 0.4 up to a 
genericode 1.0 and published it as a committee 
specification and OASIS standard.  We then will 
look at what more can be addressed in this 
area.  The committee is looking at genericode *in 
and of itself* to ensure it is useful in many 
contexts, including UBL, but there are no 
UBL-specific action items in the new Code List

>Is it possible to change the genericode file and URI naming rules to be
>similar the XSDs ?

This is a question for our UBL TC since this 
regards *using* genericode rather than *defining* genericode.

You have focused on the use of either "-2" or 
"-2.0" in various contexts of identifiers in UBL 
2, and I believe one of the two issues you have 
raised needs changing while the other does not.

>e.g.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Actual XSD file naming
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>URI:      urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:Catalogue-2
>
>Filename: UBL-Catalogue-2.0.xsd
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Actual Genericode file naming
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>URI:      urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:codelist:gc:AccountTypeCode-2.0
>
>Filename: AccountTypeCodeType.gc
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Genericode File and URI naming proposal (same as XSDs)
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>URI:      urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:codelist:gc:AccountTypeCode-2
>
>Filename: AccountTypeCode-2.0.gc
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I also do not have clear the reason why the version is specified into a
>different way on XSD filenames and URIs:
>
>-2.0  or just  -2

Because (in my mind) the URI of a namespace and 
the URI of an artefact are two different things 
and have different conventions:  I've come to the 
conclusion in all of the debates of namespace URI 
strings that it is suitable for the initial 
release of the "family of UBL 2 releases of 
vocabularies" to have "-2", after which 
newly-introduced constructs will have qualified versions "-2.1", "-2.2", etc.

The artefacts, themselves, however need to be 
distinguished as the artefacts released with the 
initial release of UBL 2.0, so the URI strings 
identifying particular artefacts, and the 
*filenames* of those artefacts, correctly end with "-2.0".

This is reflected in the qDT URI strings for the 
listSchemeURI (and upcoming listURI) value.

So I don't believe we need to change the URI 
strings:  the "-2" values that you see are for 
namespaces and the "-2.0" values that you see are for artefacts.

>This is only a personal idea, I think simplicity and homogeneity are
>essential for a global acceptance of UBL.

I agree, but homogeneity would only be useful 
when we are talking about the same kind of thing, 
which I believe is not the case for the URI strings.

But I now believe you *are* correct about the 
file names of the genericode files not currently 
having "-2.0" and they should have "-2.0".  This 
will not change the contents of the 
defaultCodeList.xsl file, but they will change 
the lists of files in the index.html file.

If no-one else has any objections, then I will go 
through the cl\ directory of PRD3 and ensure the 
filenames of the genericode artefacts end in 
"-2.0.gc" ... and I will supply Jon with new lists of filenames for index.html.

If someone does have concerns, *please* speak up quickly!

>I hope it is useful.

Very useful, Roberto!  Thank you.  For many 
months I've been anxious to get the input of 
members on issues of this nature.  I hope that I 
have accurately reflected what has not really 
been stated explicitly but has been assumed.

. . . . . . . . . . .  Ken

--
UBL/XML/XSLT/XSL-FO training: Vårø, Denmark 2006-10-02/06,11-20/24
UBL International 2006  2006-11-13/17 http://www.ublconference.com
World-wide corporate, govt. & user group UBL, XSL, & XML training.
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal