Re: Fwd: Re: [codelist] Default letter ballot regarding the Schematron-based validation methodology

["Anthony B. Coates (Miley Watts)" <abcoates@mileywatts.com>]

Comments below.

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:08:46 +0100, G. Ken Holman  
<gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com> wrote:

>> At 2007-08-19 17:10 +0100, Anthony B. Coates (Miley Watts) wrote:
>>> PS  Is there any intention that any part of this document would be
>>> normative?  That wasn't obvious.  Thanks,
>>
>> I was expecting to take it to OASIS Standard status as we are doing  
>> with genericode.  That way those who choose to use this approach with  
>> genericode can have an OASIS standard to work with.

Yes, but what would be the value in having an OASIS standard for the  
methodology?  I mean that as a serious question, what would be the actual  
realisable value beyond the value already provided by publishing it and  
making it available?

There are some parts of the methodology that I think would be useful to  
standardise, like the XML used to map document contexts (XPaths) to  
particular code lists.  That potentially has broader application than just  
this methodology, since it could be used by non-Schematron implementations  
as well.  Other parts of the document strike me more as "good practice"  
guidelines that should be published, but don't necessarily need to be a  
standard, since (to me) there is no obvious conformance requirement, i.e.  
no obvious requirement for all business partners to achieve the same  
effect in exactly the same way.

Indeed, some of the document seems to describe a particular  
implementation, and I can see that other implementations could potentially  
achieve the same result.  In that case, I myself would prefer that we  
avoid normatively publishing items that unduly contrain implementations  
without our having a particular business reason for doing so.

So I did mean this as a serious question, and I would be looking for the  
TC to make a decision on what parts of the proposal should or should not  
be normative and taken to OASIS Standard status.  As with my previous  
post, this is not about the usefulness or usability of the methodology, it  
is about what is appropriate procedurally for the TC and OASIS.

Cheers, Tony.
-- 
Anthony B. Coates
Senior Partner
Miley Watts LLP
Experts In Data
UK: +44 (20) 8816 7700, US: +1 (239) 344 7700
Mobile/Cell: +44 (79) 0543 9026
Data standards participant: genericode, ISO 20022 (ISO 15022 XML),  
UN/CEFACT, MDDL, FpML, UBL.
http://www.mileywatts.com/