Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Important eBTWG Code/CCT discussion

["Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com>]

After reading (quickly, I admit) through this thread, I'm not sure 
there's a lot of merit in the idea of unifying codes and identifiers at 
some level.  I would want to ask the question: What hard benefit might 
come out of seeing one of them "derived from" the other or both of them 
"derived from" a common ancestor somehow?  For example, would there be 
any processing code in common that could make use of this family 
relationship?

I suspect the answer is that there's no benefit; what's more useful is 
the particular pattern of supplementary components they each have, which 
distinguishes rather than unifying them.  Also, to me they simply seem 
like different enough beasts (identifier semantics include uniqueness, 
while code semantics convey classification according to a published 
scheme) to justify keeping them separate.  And this isn't even to 
address the difficulties we've been having with understanding 
identifiers on their own...

However, I may not have enough context to understand the argument being 
made.  Can you expound?

	Eve

CRAWFORD, Mark wrote:
> */Many of you are not subscribed to the eBTWG CC listserve.  The 
> attached messages are from an ongoing discussion of the Core Components 
> Supplementary Documents (CCSD) project team that is also doing a proof 
> of concept for the core components.  I think we need to watch their 
> conversations as we may be able to apply some of their thinking with our 
> own as we write our inputs to the CC Technical Specification project team./*
> 
> */Mark/*//


-- 
Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center   eve.maler @ sun.com