Re: [ubl-dev] Simple description of XML-Spreadsheet format

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

At 2008-10-23 11:20 +0800, Chin Chee-Kai wrote:
>I also don't think UBL should formally endorse/encourage the use of 
>another format (standard or otherwise) which doesn't follow UBL's 
>own NDR, especially more so when we're talking about finding a 
>non-primary supporting  format to hold the cell values of normative IDD.

Forgive me for ever giving the impression that Crane's collection of 
genericode files for the IDD in any way represents endorsement or 
choice by the UBL TC.  Reviewing my announcements, I'm quite 
confident I never mentioned these files were TC resources, and I've 
made sure to preface the package ZIP with "Crane-" and it is only 
available from Crane's web site. The committee had and has nothing to 
do with these resources beyond publishing the IDD spreadsheets on 
which the resources are based.  It was my choice to use genericode to 
represent the IDD in Crane's resources, so I'll take responsibility 
for the shoe-horning of standards in our work that you've described.

That I happened to contribute to the TC effort by using Crane's 
processes for reporting on the consistency and completeness of the 
spreadsheets is a byproduct of having created Crane's genericode 
resources ... after all, Jon asked committee members to review the 
package for accuracy.  I created these resources for my own use (I 
needed an XML representation to augment Crane's UBL summary reports, 
another issue of which is due out later today if I can find the time) 
and I took the opportunity to build in some consistency checks.  I 
published the resources to be useful for any other developers who may 
find them useful.

All power to those developers who find UBLish resources more useful than mine!

Reviewing the focus of my post to the UBL TC, I was primarily 
reporting my findings in response to Jon's request ... the 
availability of the package was secondary.

But though it was Crane's decision to use genericode, I would not 
subscribe to a UBL policy of rejecting XML vocabularies that do not 
follow UBL's own NDR.  After all, horses for courses.  If the OASIS 
UBL TC endorses one set of criteria for vocabulary design and the 
OASIS Code List Representation TC endorses another set of criteria 
for vocabulary design, where is the concern?  They each had their own 
reasons, and legacy adaptation is often an important consideration.

Given the UBL TC needed an XML representation for code lists, it 
should be lauded for avoiding an NIH (Not Invented Here) attitude of 
developing its own XML code list vocabulary using its NDRs and for 
embracing an existing XML representation (with whatever conventions) 
suitable for the purpose.  I know of organizations adopting the UBL 
NDRs for creating their own new vocabularies, but I'll assume they 
are creating new vocabularies in the absence of having suitable 
vocabularies already available.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken

--
Upcoming XSLT/XSL-FO hands-on courses:      Wellington, NZ 2009-01
Training tools: Comprehensive interactive XSLT/XPath 1.0/2.0 video
Video sample lesson:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrNjJCh7Ppg
Video course overview:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTiodiij6gE
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/
Male Cancer Awareness Nov'07  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal