Re: [ubl-lcsc] RE: Use of CCT's

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

There are many cases where a commonly used name does not actually have 
the correct representation term for a BBIE.  For example, Order Number, 
Post Code,  Product Code, Street Number and as you point out Phone 
Number.  none of these are actually numbers or codes.

This is one of the strengths of using ISO 11179 cirrectly -  the 
combination of property and representation gives us the term(s) that 
uniquely identify a BBIE semantically(its property) plus the way (or 
ways) it can be represented.  In the case of Phone Number the term 
'number' has got nothing to do with either.

In UBL, we settled on Telephone as the property term (using the 
UN/EDIFACT terminology) and text as its representation.

      <xsd:element ref="Telephone"
       minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1">
        <xsd:annotation>
          <xsd:documentation>
            <ccts:Component>
              <ccts:CategoryCode>BBIE</ccts:CategoryCode>
              <ccts:DictionaryEntryName>Contact. Telephone. 
Text</ccts:DictionaryEntryName>
              <ccts:Definition>The number or virtual address of a 
telephone in a telecommunication system </ccts:Definition>
              <ccts:ObjectClass>Contact</ccts:ObjectClass>
              <ccts:PropertyTerm>Telephone</ccts:PropertyTerm>
              <ccts:RepresentationTerm>Text</ccts:RepresentationTerm>
              <ccts:DataType>Text.Type</ccts:DataType>
            </ccts:Component>
          </xsd:documentation>
        </xsd:annotation>
      </xsd:element>
and then ...
<xsd:element name="Telephone" type="rt:TextType"/>

NB .  the NDR rule about reusing BBIEs actually says that it should be...

<xsd:element name="Telephone" type="cbc:TelephoneType"/>
and then...
    <xsd:complexType name="TelephoneType">
        <xsd:simpleContent>
        <xsd:restriction base="rt:TextType"/>
        </xsd:simpleContent>
    </xsd:complexType>

i was claiming this to be redundnant and confusing.  the new type adds 
no new semantics and it takes two levels of reference and an additional 
schema to answer your question!


CRAWFORD, Mark wrote:

>let me 1) think about it for a couple of days 2) check with the UBL LC to see what they have done, and 3) ask TBG17 who is doing the CEFACT implementations to see if I can capture a consensus.  
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Lisa M. Shreve [mailto:lshreve@comcast.net]
>Sent: Fri 2/27/2004 6:58 PM
>To: CRAWFORD, Mark
>Subject: Use of CCT's
>
>
>Hi Mark,
> 
>Some of our groups continue to struggle over which CCT to use, under different circurstances.
> 
>One that came up recently is phone number.  While it is a number, it clearly is not numeric, not a quantity, not a measure --- I would say that Text is the right choice.  But, I don't see anywhere that I can point to, in order to produce a rule.
> 
>So, first, do you agree that Text is the right CCT?
> 
>Second, can you help me with the rule -- I've got my TAS hat on ...
> 
>Thanks,
> 
>lms
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-lcsc/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>  
>

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160