Subject: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] [Fwd: Fwd: ISO 3166-1 -- Change of Alpha-3 CodeElement for Romania]
From: Matthew Gertner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: NDR SC <email@example.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:54:38 +0100
Title: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] [Fwd: Fwd: ISO 3166-1 -- Change of Alpha-3 Code Element
Are codelists part of the data or part of
the schema? This isn't as clearcut to me as you are implying.
Another question: don't these lists
tend to have English language equivalents specified for all values?
-----Original Message----- From: CRAWFORD, Mark
[mailto:MCRAWFORD@lmi.org] Sent:Wednesday, February 13, 2002 To: 'Fabrice DESRE'; NDR SC Subject: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] [Fwd:
Fwd: ISO 3166-1 -- Change of Alpha-3 Code Element for Romania]
are loosing sight of a very distinct difference between human
readability/semantic clarity of tags and human readability/semantic clarity of
data (codes). It's not our data that we want human readable! There
is no way that we can ensure or control semantic clarity of data, nor should we
entertain any thoughts of trying to do so.
tremendous amount of work has gone into establishing code lists to provide tokens
for data values that are clear, unambiguous, and easily mapped to any language
specific value of the code. Avoiding using those code lists for data
values and trying to establish English language equivalents just makes no
sense, is counterproductive, and does not justify the small processing time
savings for transformations from code to language equivalents.