Re: [regrep-semantic] [UDEF]

[Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>]

Given that STEP 203 part 19 is in XML format, the UDEF methodology may 
be a good fit.

Duane Nickull

ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote:

>Carl Mattocks wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I was thinking STEP ..
>><quote who="David RR Webber">
>>    
>>
>>>Joe,
>>>
>>>Various industry coding schemes is one thing that
>>>comes to mind - where rules are applied to come
>>>up with product codes and classifications - healthcare,
>>>aerospace, et al.  There's probably overlap with
>>>STEP here somewhere too.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>A coding/naming scheme seems a pretty good characterization of UDEF.  Given 
>that, STEP would not be a competitor.  STEP is about models for exchange of 
>product description data to support design and manufacturing (CAD, CAM, etc).  
>I don't believe that it provides or requires any coding schemes for naming 
>product classes.  However, PLIB is a related standard for part catalogs that 
>might include such a scheme.  
>
>I know of a couple of domain specific coding schemes with wide use:
>the Open Technical Dictionary (based on US DoD and NATO codification systems) 
>and the codes for the MARC 21 metadata markup system used by libraries for
>their collections. ECCMA mentioned that they were undertaking fast tracking
>eOTD as a PLIB related PAS in ISO TC184/SC4 (home of STEP, PLIB, and PSL).
>
>-Evan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Senior Standards Strategist
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://www.adobe.com