[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-comment] To define propietary business documents
Tod, Codes are a shortened representation of something e.g US - for the united states, M for male ID - is a piece of data that uniquely identifies a particular instance of something or someone . e.g U167166111B - to identify a particular container on a ship or MM-123-666 to identify a box by its mark or number. An ID can be fairly abitrary, and transitory where as a code within a a particular list is unique, unchangeable universal. my 2ps worth Cheers, Phil ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Boyle" <tboyle@rosehill.net> To: "Thomas Y.T. Lee" <ytlee@csis.hku.hk>; <ubl-comment@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 8:15 PM Subject: Re: [ubl-comment] To define propietary business documents > At 05:58 AM 6/30/02, Thomas Y.T. Lee wrote: > > >2. I still have difficutlies in applying the UBL/CC methology, for example > >the use of Id and Code types. (Should IMO Hazard Class use Id or Code? In > >the 0p64 spreadsheet, Id is used.) > > In my humble opinion, there is *no difference* between an ID and a Code. > In fact these both resemble nothing but a function, in which you stuff > a value into a black box, and it returns something back to you. That > principle has been build a million times, in a million different ways. > > I've never heard any convincing story why Code/ID are different. I > think the reason UN/CEFACT is so conflicted over such a thing, what's > really going on is they're trying to implement some different political > rules by constraining the functionality of registries about who, and > what organization (Agency) will be Code list agencies versus who will > be allowed to maintain Identifiers. They both have an index value and > they both return a structure or document not a single value. They > are technically the same thing. (I might add, the context facility is > similar in codifying a solution for something that is essentially a > political economic problem. It accommodates diverse/incompatible > aggregates (document schemas) and tries to provide a systematic > way for them to be mapped against each other, afaics that also, > is a technical accomplishment already done a million times by > middleware vendors, and we haven't even provided taxonomies for our > framework.) > > Use ID. Forget about code. Codes are evil. :-) > > Some owners of list data will use the CCTS "Code" type. > When you encounter them you can > > - wrapper them as an Identifier type, or > > - if the set is small or static, in your market or community then, put the > whole set or subset, in your runtime, or XML schema. But don't > attempt to put the entire EDIFACT code lists, like > CommerceOne did with their XDR version of XCBL, "XCBL30.xdr" > which is 691Kb. > http://www.google.com/search?q=AmericanPsychiatricAssociationDiagnosticStati sticalManualOfMentalDisorders > > The more I look at the basic Types in the CCTS I wonder why they don't > just align them with base types in Java, C, and other lower level > programming languages. That exercise has already been performed by > a very large technical workgroup who created the XML Schema types. > CC workgroup should have adopted either the Java types, C types, > or XML Schema types (or a subset) at least, as CCTs. > > UN/CEFACT is an inappropriate place to try to redefine low > level datatypes and IMO the CCTS workgroup has been unwise, > inventing simpler generalizations of types that are not technically > equivalent to any language's lower level types, and inserting > too many layers into the hierarchy of information. > > Again, this is my personal view and does not reflect the current > Core Components Technical Specification, so I could be wrong. > I regret, I have already written my comments to the CCTS in > past cycles and will not be submitting into the ongoing CCTS > effort until the eight layers of the Core Component stack are > consolidated into something simpler. If you're interested in more > discussion, here are some experiences I had in expressing > general-purpose accounting schema in Core Components, > http://www.gldialtone.com/UseCCsInGLs.htm > > Apologies for my opinion, and with warm regards, > Todd > Todd Boyle CPA 9745-128th Ave NE Kirkland WA > International Accounting Services, LLC www.gldialtone.com > 425-827-3107 AR/AP everywhere www.arapxml.net > Give me ambiguity or give me something else. > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC