OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

codelist-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [codelist-comment] Questions on: CVA Status and real world implementations

Good morning, Lutz, and thank you for your post
today to the OASIS Code List Representation
Technical Committee (CLRTC) Public Comment
List.  You have chosen the correct method of
asking for such a formal response from the committee.

At 2015-04-24 11:07 +0200, Rabe, Lutz (Finanzen, 02-24) wrote:
As officer at the IT standardization office of
the federal German government and the Länder
(KoSIT) I am looking for up to date information
on the "Context/Value Association" specification.

We welcome your questions.

As KoSIT we are providing a framework (named
XÖV) to foster development of technical
specifications for the public
administration.  At this time, we are undergoing
a study on the benefits and risks of utilizing
the CVA approach to address existing
requirements of the XÖV users. In particular, we
are interested whether there is any information
on the following topics available:

?             Release plans, Change Requests and
overall maintenance procedures of the specification

At this time the CLRTC has not received any new
user requirements to be addressed, nor any bugs
reported, that would trigger maintenance of
either the genericode specification or the CVA specification.

Accordingly, the committee is still formally
constituted but it has been in an hiatus since the last of the formal releases:


?             Real world implementations / usage of the CVA approach

Our committee has a wiki, but it has been some
time since the information in the wiki was
updated as no-one has brought their work to our attention:


The public use of CVA that I personally can
document for you is in the OASIS Universal
Business Language (UBL) specifications, currently at release 2.1:


The use of the CVA and genericode files in UBL is documented here:


... where the creation of the
UBL-DefaultDTQ-2.1.xsl value validation
stylesheet is described.  This product of the use
of CVA and genericode is then used by UBL users
as a set of value constraints on UBL documents as documented here:


The genericode and CVA files are found in the
distribution in these directories:


... and the documentation that ties the one CVA
file to all of the genericode files of both UBL
2.0 and UBL 2.1 is found in the lengthy file here:


The UBL use-case was the driving factor behind
the creation of the Context/Value Specification
(indeed, the CLR Technical Committee is an
independent spin-off of the UBL Technical
Committee).  The UBL use of the UN/CEFACT Core
Component Technical Specification (CCTS) 2.01 for
code list and identifier metadata that identify
versions of code lists is accommodated in the CVA specification.

Note that the UBL specification is currently in
the final round of voting to become the ISO/IEC
19845 standard, thus the use of CVA and
genericode will soon be found within an ISO specification:


Other members of the CLRTC have subscribed to
this list and though the formal public comment
list is not intended for conversational threads,
I invite them to respond to your inquiry to the
committee with their own perspectives of the use
of these specifications.  I know that an
insurance group in the UK looked at these
specifications, but I do not know if they have made their explorations public.

To engage in an actual discussion regarding
implementations, note there is a (rather
inactive) developer list for CLRTC interests
here, and I invite you to subscribe to the list
to ask questions of other developers who are
interested in these two specifications:


I think the inactivity is testament that for
those who are using the specifications, the
specifications are working well for them.  I
worry, however, that these specifications do not
get a lot of visibility and that they could be
addressing many situations but developers are unaware of what they offer.

I am delighted to see from your note today that
there is more interest in the use of these specifications.

I invite you to subscribe to the developer list
and attempt to initiate developer-related
discussions that would not be appropriate for
this formal Technical Committee public comment mail list.

On the background:
The XÖV Framework provides specific methodology
(MDD), tools, building blocks (semantics and
data types) and infrastructure components to
support the efficient development and
maintenance of technical specifications for xml
based data exchange in eGovernment.

Very interesting!

We introduced Genericode in 2010 to our
framework and at that time it seemed to be a
good idea to restrict Genericode features to
ease the adoption of the specification for the users of the XÖV Framework.

Absolutely ... it makes sense to start grow into the use of specifications.

Nowadays Genericode code lists are a vital
component of the framework and the
specifications developed on the basis of the
framework and we are faced with increasing customer demands.


I have long been trying, without success, to
convince ISO and UN/CEFACT to use genericode as
one of the available publication formats for
their code lists.  I think this would be a boon
to developers, but it has been hard to convince
them.  Do you have public citations of your use
of genericode in your framework and
specifications?  Perhaps the committee can use
these as evidence to support the suggestions to ISO and UN/CEFACT.

As a consequence, we started to rethink the
scope of regulation and consider a future
framework release that supports a wider range of
genericode features as well as standardized
methods for using codelists (leading us to CVA).
Thus, I would appreciate if you could provide
any details or more up to date information on
maintenance, release plans or market relevance
of the CVA specification which is not already on the OASIS website published.

I can offer nothing more from the committee than
what is on the OASIS web site, other than to
underscore we would welcome new member
participation in our committee should there be
identified new requirements that would be
addressed by revisions to the specifications or
the introduction of new specifications.

If you need more detailed information or if you
are interested in the Genericode application
within the framework and related tools I would
be happy to answer your questions. Many thanks
in advance for your kind support.

As this list is not the appropriate venue for
such discussions, I invite CLR TC members who are
interested to contact you directly.

Perhaps you can solicit feedback from the CLR
developer community by asking similar questions on the CLR-Dev mail list.

Thank you, again, for your interest in our
specifications!  Please let us know if we can
answer any more of your questions from the committee's perspective.

. . . . . . . Ken

Check our site for free XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and UBL developer resources |
Free 5-hour lecture:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/links/video.htm |
Crane Softwrights Ltd.             http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ |
G. Ken Holman                    mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com |
Google+ profile:       http://plus.google.com/+GKenHolman-Crane/about |
Legal business disclaimers:     http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal |

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]