Re: Currency codes (ISO 4217)

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

| i am not sure where you got the date of sept 5th 2003 but the
| latest version published by ISO is ISO4217:2001.

Short-circuited synapse.  I seem to be stuck in September.  I
meant to say 5 October 2003 -- that is, the day that I happened to
pick up the file from the BSI site.

| The warning signs are that your list still has Yugoslavian Dinars
| (YUM) which was replaced in February 2003 by the Serbian Dinar
| (CSD) and the Euro (EUR), in newly formed country of Serbia and
| Montenegro. the Afghani changed from AFA (in your list) to AFN
| (the new code) when it was devalued in October 2002.
| 
| these things go on and on... my point was that capturing these
| things is fraught and the 'standard' code sets we produce need to
| be qualified with this recogition.  the devil really is in those
| details!

Yes... But until the maintainers make versions in our recommended
codelist format that are retrievable at run time over the net, I
think we're stuck with this problem.  What you're pointing out is
that the maintaining authority itself doesn't keep its list up to
date.  The file I picked up yesterday (5 October) was the version
that ISO says to use (I followed the link embedded in the ISO news
release issued 30 September that pointed to these as the official
sources for the codes we can legally employ).  And as you've
pointed out elsewhere, BSI says straight out that the list they're
providing is not current.  To get the real thing, you have to
shell out for an updating service.

"In the world of fast moving currencies can your Company afford to
be without it?"  Feh.  What a business model.

| i suspect sue would agree when i suggest it may be more effective
| to use the Un/ECE Trade Facilitiation Code Lists at:
| 
| http://www.unece.org/cefact/trafix/bdy_code.htm.  
| 
| this is a maintained free-of-charge for purposes akin to ours.   

Sue has said that she does agree.  However:

1. I don't understand how UNECE's version can be more up-to-date
   than BSI's, since (according to BSI) BSI is the maintainer.  Of
   course, BSI is publicly exposing a list that it knows to be out
   of date in order to charge people for the accurate version, so
   I suppose it is possible that UNECE gets access to the real
   thing and reflects changes to it even before BSI updates its
   own publicly visible version.  But what a system to be buying
   into!  I'd rather stick with what's publicly visible even if
   it's out of date.  To my mind, the publicly visible thing *is*
   the standard.  Standard means everyone can see it.  I don't
   understand how global interoperability can be achieved using
   specifications that can be referenced only by people who can
   pay for them.

2. UNECE's heart may be in the right place, but I think we're
   limited by the language that Chee-kai pointed to earlier:

      http://www.unece.org/etrades/uncopyright.htm

   Paragraph 2a of that notice reads as follows:

      The United Nations maintains this web site (the "Site") as a
      courtesy to those who may choose to access the Site
      ("Users"). The information presented herein is for
      informative purposes only. The United Nations grants
      permission to Users to visit the Site and to download and
      copy the information, documents and materials (collectively,
      "Materials") from the Site for the User's personal,
      non-commercial use, without any right to resell or
      redistribute them or to compile or create derivative works
      therefrom, subject to the terms and conditions outlined
      below, and also subject to more specific restrictions that
      may apply to specific Material within this Site.

   This appears on the face of it to expressly prohibit us from
   distributing the code lists in the form provided by UNECE and
   also from creating the XSD version we need for our UBL 1.0
   distribution.  (And I apologize again to both Ken and Chee-kai
   for not reading this carefully the first time around.)

Bottom line: I don't see how we can be on more solid legal ground
than by following ISO's instructions.  ISO says to use the files
referenced in their release of 30 September.  So those are the
ones I think we'd better use, at least until ISO (not UNECE!) says
it will hold us harmless for using a version other than the one
that ISO has provided.

Beyond meeting our current needs (which I think that the files I'm
providing will do), what all this adds up to for me is that it's
time for us to start thinking about establishing an OASIS TC to
develop royalty-free code lists that are available in a standard
XML format directly from the working groups that maintain them.
The current system sucks.

Jon