Re: [ubl-lcsc] QA - Controlled Vocabulary [was Scope Document]

["Peter P. Yim" <yimpp@cim-oem.com>]

Further to the Fri 10.25.02 conference call of the QA team, it is 
recommended (by Mike Adcock) that this issue of DISPATCH vs. DESPATCH 
(plus other similar issues) be clarified through the compiling a 
"Controlled Vocabulary (with definitions)" where, for example, these 
two words (DISPATCH and DESPATCH) will be shown as being synonymous.

We also briefly talked this "Controlled Vocabulary" as being different 
from the "Glossary", which is also supposed to be published.

I would, personally, however, like to see a little bit more discussion 
on whether we need these two to be separate, or whether one would 
suffice -- remembering that we already have a BIE Dictionary with, 
supposedly, proper UBL definitions.

Regards,
PPY
--

marion.royal@gsa.gov wrote Fri, 11 Oct 2002 16:43:36 -0400:
 >
> I think clarity should overule legacy on these close calls.
> 
> Marion A. Royal
> 202.208.4643 (Office)
> 202.302.4634 (Mobile)
> 
> 
=== 

>                                                                                                                    
> From: "Probert, Sue" <Sue.Probert@commeceone.com>
> To:   "'Burcham, Bill'" <Bill_Burcham@stercomm.com>, 
 > <ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc:     (bcc: Marion A. Royal/MEB/CO/GSA/GOV)                        
> Subject:     RE: [ubl-lcsc] Scope Document                           
> 10/11/2002 03:58 PM                                                                            
>                                                                                                                    
> 
> Bill
> 
> I am not sure that this is a US/UK English question. Oxford gives them as
> valid alternatives for the same thing but admittedly gives dispatch the
> greater emphasis so I guess you are right. However, in UN/EDIFACT the
> equivalent message has always been called Despatch Advice or more often
> DESADV! In my experience the names ASN or Despatch Advice are the commonly
> used and understood names for this functional document type. Other
> thoughts?
> 
> Sue
> 
> 
> Sue Probert
> Senior Director, Document Standards
> Commerce One
> Mobile: +44 7798 846652
> Tel: +44 1425 275117 or +44 1753 483000
> email: sue.probert@commerceone.com
> 
> 
>      -----Original Message-----
>      From: Burcham, Bill [mailto:Bill_Burcham@stercomm.com]
>      Sent: 11 October 2002 19:57
>      To: Ubl-Lcsc
>      Subject: RE: [ubl-lcsc] Scope Document
> 
>      OK, I'll be the big bad amero-centrist here and ask -- shouldn't that
>      be "dispatch" notice as opposed to "despatch" notice?
> 
>      -Bill
===

>           -----Original Message-----
>           From: Lisa Seaburg [mailto:xmlgeek@gmi.net]
>           Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 1:48 PM
>           To: Ubl-Lcsc
>           Subject: [ubl-lcsc] Scope Document
> 
>           The Scope document is now available on the LC SC webpage at the
>           following link:
> 
>           http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/lcsc/doc/UBLScopeStatements0-01.doc
> 
>           Let me know if there are any problems.
> 
>           Lisa