[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Requirements for section 2.3
(Sorry, folks, I meant to send this out immediately after the meeting and never did so (but I thought I had). I noticed this morning there were no comments to it, which is understandable since it was never sent! I was confused about the nature of the as-yet-undocumented requirements and hoped to spark some discussion. I'll try again! ................... Ken) Comments for requirements document: (1) - I've never heard of "DE 3055", and perhaps others hadn't either. Googling for it I see it is a coded value of agency identifiers. Knowing the code tells you the responsible agency for the code list values. For example "5" is the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). I gather it comes from the EDI world. (2) - the UBL 1.0 draft had the concept of "private use" code lists, be they originating and modified from an existing code list or created out of thin air ... I'm thinking that a private use code list has private use codes, some of which might have come from standardized code lists and represent the same thing as found in the standardized code list, and some of which are synthesized for private use only. The wording of the titles written so far includes the term "Proprietary codes", and I think that might be misleading (at least it is for me as I'm not sure what exactly the requirement is under "types of code lists" ... is it to support such codes?). Once someone takes a standardized code list (from anywhere, does it matter where it comes from?) and makes *any* changes to it, it is no longer a standardized code list. Mechanically, it is no different from any other code list, as all code lists need to be able to function the same way. Other requirements ensure that it is uniquely identified, but isn't that as far as we have to go? Do we need to go all the way down to the individual coded values? Which leads me to the conclusion that this specification need only talk about: (a) - external unmodified code lists [R6] (b) - internal code lists (standardized by LCSC) [R7] (c) - private-use code lists (are origins important?) That would create a requirement along the lines of: [] Private-use code lists The UBL library MUST accommodate the incorporation of private-use code lists where trading partners cannot meet specific business requirements after first trying to utilize, unchanged, either external or internal code lists. I see that all of the requirements I offered during the call today to comment on are about codes, not code lists. Do we need really need to worry about these? 2.3.4 Standardized codes whose code lists are managed by an agency from the code list DE 3055. 2.3.5 [R8] Proprietary codes whose code lists are managed by an agency that is identified by using a standard. 2.3.6 [R9] Proprietary codes whose code lists are managed by an agency that is identified without the use of a standard. 2.3.7 [R10] Proprietary codes whose code lists are managed by an agency that is specified by using a role or that is not specified at all. -- North America (Washington, DC): 3-day XSLT/2-day XSL-FO 2004-03-15 - (San Francisco, CA): 3-day XSLT/2-day XSL-FO 2004-03-22 Asia (Hong Kong, China): 3-day XSLT/2-day XSL-FO 2004-05-17 Europe (Bremen, Germany): 3-day XSLT/2-day XSL-FO 2004-05-24 Instructor-led on-site corporate, government & user group training for XSLT and XSL-FO world-wide: please contact us for the details 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 Breast Cancer Awareness http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]