RE: [ubl-comment] UBL comments on ebXML Core Components TechnicalSpecification v1.8

["Schuldt, Ron L" <ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com>]

UBL Team,

I concur with most of the comments contained in the document prepared by the
UBL team. However, the subject of CODE versus IDENTIFIER is not being
portrayed properly.

In the example for Country Code, AU represents Australia and the processor
would need to refer to a look-up table to convert from "AU" to its meaning -
namely "Australia"

In comparison, an "Employee Identifier" could be something like 
123-45-6789 and the processor does not need to refer to a look-up table but
simply takes the value captured between the two tags e.g., 
<EmployeeIdentifier>123-45-6789</EmployeeIdentifier>. Except for validating
that the string has the right characteristics, the processor does not
necessarily need to refer to a look-up table. Typically an identifier is a
"key" that is used to join two or more tables. Idntifiers are necessary keys
for topics such as Part Identifier, Person Identifier (since names cannot be
considered unique), Enterprise Identifier (typically assigned by a
registration authority such as DUNS), Engineering Drawing Document
Identifier, etc. In general, identifiers are used when when the population
of the set is continually growing and some activity or system is continually
adding new identifiers.

To simplify the difference, a CODE requires a processor to refer to a
look-up table to convert to the actual instance whereas an IDENTIFIER does
not require the processor to refer to a look-up table but rather captures
the instance value contained between the start tag and the end tag.

Therefore, I strongly recommend that Proposal 9 be deleted or at least
revised to instead request further clarification of the differences. If you
concur with my examples above, perhaps they could frame a proposed
clarification.

Ronald L. Schuldt
Senior Staff Systems Architect
Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave. #F521 MP DC5694
Littleton, CO 80127
303-977-1414
ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:12 AM
To: ubl-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ubl-comment] UBL comments on ebXML Core Components Technical
Specification v1.8


In response to the UN/CEFACT's Electronic Business Transition ad-hoc 
Working Group's (eBTWG) call for comments on their ebXML Core Components 
Technical Specification (see http://www.ebtwg.org/news/040402.html), we 
are attempting to prepare a consolidated response from UBL members based 
on our recent experiences with implmenting some of the concepts and 
rules indentified.

Please find attached the current working draft of this response. If you 
would like to contribute or comment on our comments, then please do so 
within the next 48 hours using this list. We plan to discuss these 
responses at this week's NDR and LC subcommittee meetings. The date for 
submission to the eBTWG is Saturday May 4th.

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142