Re: [ubl-dev] udt:IdentifierType vs. udt:CodeType

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

At 2015-05-12 11:58 +0200, Eric Desgranges wrote:
> We're back on our project re. UBL implementation.  I notice a 
> language code will translate into an identifier type whereas a 
> country code is based on a code type. What are the rationales for 
> that distinctive implementation?
>
> cac:LanguageType  -> cbc:IDType -> udt:IdentifierType  OR 
> cbc:LanguageIDType -> udt:IdentifierType
> cac:CountryType -> cbc:IdentificationCodeType -> udt:CodeType

I believe this distinction comes from inheriting into UBL the design 
concepts chosen by UN/CEFACT.

I don't think there is any discussion about the use of country 
"codes" ... I think the focus of this question is why the Identifier 
Type is chosen for the language value.  Forgive me if I'm mistaken as 
I'm not trying to put words into your mouth.  In my work as chairman 
of the OASIS Code List Representation Technical Committee, this was 
my focus on your question.

Note the CCT components of the Core Component Types for Code and Text 
in section 8.1 of the Core Components Technical Specification V2.01 
(pages 96 and 97):

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/cefact/codesfortrade/CCTS/CCTS_V2-01_Final.pdf

For both of those core component types you will find the component 
"Language. Identifier".  It was not the UBL committee that chose the 
name of this supplementary component.

You can see these components realized in the attributes of UBL for 
the unqualified data types of Code, Text and Name (since Name is 
derived from Text) as "LanguageID":

http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/os-UBL-2.1/mod/summary/reports/UBL-AllDocuments-2.1.html#UDT-Code.Type
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/os-UBL-2.1/mod/summary/reports/UBL-AllDocuments-2.1.html#UDT-Text.Type
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/os-UBL-2.1/mod/summary/reports/UBL-AllDocuments-2.1.html#UDT-Name.Type

Since UBL is using CCTS, thus it is using "Language. Identifier", or 
languageID=, for its attributes, it would be inconsistent to be using 
"Language. Code" for its elements at the same time.  Yes I know 
attributes are different from elements, and elements carry all of 
their own CCT metadata, but I think we would be getting "distinctive 
implementation" questions if we used identifier in an attribute and 
code in an element for the one concept of language.

At the time the UBL committee decided to work with UN/CEFACT core 
component types my focus on the committee work was elsewhere, so 
there may be other rationale that contributed to the answer to your 
question, but this is my own perspective of the answer that I've 
developed from my analysis of the situation.

I hope this is helpful.

. . . . . . . . Ken

--
Check our site for free XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and UBL developer resources |
Free 5-hour lecture:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/links/video.htm |
Crane Softwrights Ltd.             http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/ |
G. Ken Holman                    mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com |
Google+ profile:       http://plus.google.com/+GKenHolman-Crane/about |
Legal business disclaimers:     http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal |


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com