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

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

i suspect we were basing our proposal on the defintions of 'code' and 'identifier'
given by CCTS.  

Code : A character string (letters, figures or symbols) that for brevity
and / or language independence may be used to represent or replace a definitive
value or text of an attribute.
Identifier : A character string used to establish the identity of, and distinguish
uniquely, one instance of an object within an identification scheme from
all other objects within the same scheme.

It sounds like Ron is questioning those definitions, or maybe seeking to
extend them.  

Ron, it sounds to me as if you would rather see a differentiation/definition
made on the basis of how each of them is processed (ie how we establish the
value), rather than their function (as in the CCTS defintion).  Is that correct?


Schuldt, Ron L wrote:
> 667ED598F8A2D311981D00508B1223800E2F849F@emss02m04.ems.lmco.com">
> A code is a code since the processor needs to refer to a look-up table to
> convert it to its value. An identifier contains the value between the start
> tag and the end tag.
>
> The difference is in the behavior of the data and what the processor does
> with the data. Therefore, I must disagree with the notion that a code could
> play the role of an identifier. I know that X12 has failed to use the notion
> of identifier since the term "code" is used (and mis-used) extensively and
> in some instances should instead be using the term "identifier." In general,
> where X12 uses the term "number" it can usually be interpreted as an
> identifier. For example, "communications number" - Data Element 364 in X12 -
> would become "communications identifier" NOT "communications code"
>
> 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: Eve L. Maler [mailto:eve.maler@sun.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 10:37 AM
> To: Schuldt, Ron L
> Cc: ubl-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ubl-comment] UBL comments on ebXML Core Components
> Technical Specification v1.8
>
>
> Ron,
>
> You're right that codes get mapped to meanings, and that identifiers 
> convey uniqueness.  But I think the proposal as stated is defensible. 
> For example, it makes the point that sometimes codes can "play the role" 
> of an identifier (that is, sometimes you have a piece of information 
> that both can be mapped to a meaning and, when used on a particular 
> object, indicates uniqueness of tha
> t object).  So making them be a 
> mutually exclusive choice is unhelpful.
>
> The suggestion in the proposal is to allow identifiers to be 
> *represented* in a variety of ways (at the RT level, e.g. as Codes or 
> Names), while allowing the identifier-ness to be captured slightly 
> higher up (at the property level).  So nothing is being lost.
>
> 	Eve
>
> Schuldt, Ron L wrote:
> > 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
> >                     
>                     
                    
-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142