Re: [ubl-comment] Use of cct:CodeType

["Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com>]

Hello Patrick,

The intention is (sort of) to use the code type for all codes, where in 
order to be a code it has to be formalized to some minimum extent. 
However, the currently proposed design rule for code lists hasn't yet 
been coordinated with what you're seeing in cct:CodeType, so looking at 
the real rule will probably give a better understanding of the eventual 
plan.

Note that the following link takes you to a slightly old version of our 
Naming and Design Rules document; the location of the code list 
information in our doc set is somewhat in flux, and we've since pulled 
it out of the main NDR document:

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/ndrsc/archive/wd-ublndrsc-ndrdoc-12.pdf

Basically, for a code list to be used in UBL at all, it will need to be 
associated with its own unique XSD type, which will set the various 
metadata (supplementary components) to ensure semantic clarity of the 
code provided.

The background paper that explains the code list rule gives more 
information on the derivation/restriction opportunities:

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/ndrsc/archive/p-maler-codelists-09.pdf

We hope to have a more complete document dedicated to code list rules 
out soon...

	Eve

Patrick Garvey wrote:
> Hello. First of all, thanks to everyone for answering our other questions so quickly. We really appreciate it.
> 
> We now have a two-part question about the proper use of cct:CodeType:
> 
>  Is this type intended to be used only for code lists defined by an authority like ISO? Or can this type also be used for codes that are applicable in house, and enumerated within the schema definition?
> 
> Also, is it intended that the content of an element of cct:CodeType always be part of a Code/Value substitution scheme (USD --> United States Dollars)? Or can the Code and the Value be the same thing?
> 
> For instance, I may have an element <Plant>. I also have a <PlantTypeCode> element whose content is enumerated:
> "Deciduous"
> "Evergreen"
> 
> Is it ok to restrict cct:CodeType when defining the PlantTypeCodeType? Or is this a misuse of cct:CodeType, and I'm more accurate restricting cct:TextType? We like the information value-add we get by defining these types as cct:CodeType, but aren't sure if this is a valid reason if we're not relying on a standards body nor doing any code/value substitution.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Patrick Garvey
> Talaris Corporation

-- 
Eve Maler                                        +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems                            cell +1 781 883 5917
XML Web Services / Industry Initiatives      eve.maler @ sun.com