[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: UBL 1.1 Code List Requirements Review
Code List Enthusiasts:
We are working on the implementation of the requirements for a Universal
Business Language (UBL) 1.1 version of the code list specification. At the end
of the UBL 1.0 process, some of the proposed solution components were not
approved. The reason for this was that there was a desire by the greater UBL
committee to obtain better clarification / justification for the requirements
set, and, the review of specific concerns with the detailed solution
proposed.
The efforts of ROSETTANET, OAGIS, UBL, and AEX/CFI (see
sourceforge.net/projects/aexdev and sourceforge.net/projects/cfidev), have all
considered models for code lists (as well as many other groups). These groups
listed have expressed a specific interest in the possibility of a collaboration
to achieve a single specification that all can use. For this reason I am
circulating this email widely recognizing that the present effort is being
conducted under the auspices of the OASIS UBL committee.
To facilitate the discussion, I undertook an exercise as the editor with
some help from a couple of discussions with other participants to try and
clarify the requirements in the document. At this time, we want to conduct a
canvas of interested parties to obtain some degree of support for the
requirements for code lists.
We have not added or deleted requirements to date. We have only massaged
the wording so that they were more understandable -- this will necessarily
be a continuing process. Also, I would point out that the current set of
requirements include those collected from the participation of all the UBL code
list contributors and not a single view. I have taken my role as editor as that
of aggregating requirements and not passing judgement on them.
That being said, I believe the next step will involve obtaining some
measure of support for the requirements by providing an email response that
allows the reader to provide their judgement on a scale of 0-5 (0=not supported,
5=highly supported, X=no opinion, ?=I don't understand this). During that canvas
we will try to obtain the specific concerns with the proposed model(s) for
further resolution.
Please review the attached draft (only so far as section 2 requirements).
Then, please reply to this email with an indication of support for the
inidividual requirements. For example, consider the requirement R1. Below is a
annotation of the list below for that requirement with an optional comment
added:
2.2.1 [Rating: 5] [R1] First-order business information entities Note that the [5] is the rating I gave to this requirement. Here is a comment about the proper way to state this requirement ............. Please add your ratings to the [Rating: ] annotation of the requirements below. If you
desire to comment further, simply type after the requirement. Use a rating scale of 0-5 (0=not supported, 5=highly supported, X=no
opinion, ?=I don't understand this)
UBL Code List 1.1 Requirements
Summary:
2.2
Use and management of Code
Lists 2.2.1 [Rating: ]
[R1] First-order business information
entities 2.2.2 [Rating: ]
[R2] Second-order business information
entities 2.2.3 [Rating: ]
[R3] Data and Metadata model separate from
Schema representation 2.2.4 [Rating: ]
[R4] XML and XML Schema
representation 2.2.5 [Rating: ]
[R5 (Future)] Machine readable data
model 2.2.6 [Rating: ]
[R6 (Future)] Conformance test for code
lists 2.2.7 [Rating: ]
[R6a] Supplementary components or metadata
available in instance documents 2.3.1 [Rating: ]
[R7] UBL maintained Code
List 2.3.2 [Rating: ]
[R8] Identify and use external standardized code
lists 2.3.3 [Rating: ]
[R9] Private use code
list 2.4
Technical requirements of Code
Lists 2.4.1 [Rating: ]
[R10] Semantic
clarity 2.4.2 [Rating: ]
[R11]
Interoperability 2.4.3 [Rating: ]
[R12] External
maintenance 2.4.4 [Rating: ]
[R13]
Validatability 2.4.5 [Rating: ]
[R14] Context rules
friendliness 2.4.6 [Rating: ]
[R15] Upgradability / Extensibility without
modifying underlying references 2.4.7 [Rating: ]
[R16]
Readability 2.4.8 [Rating: ]
[R17] Code lists must be unambiguously
identified 2.4.9 [Rating: ]
[R18 (Future)] Ability to prevent extension or
modification 2.5
Design Requirements of Code List Data
Model 2.5.1 [Rating: ]
[R19] A set of the values (codes) forms each
code list 2.5.2 [Rating: ]
[R20 (Future)] Multiple lists of equivalent
values (codes) for a code list 2.5.3 [Rating: ]
[R21] Unique identifier(s) for a code
list 2.5.4 [Rating: ]
[R22] Unique identifiers for individual
entries in a code list 2.5.5 [Rating: ]
[R23] Names for a code
list 2.5.6 [Rating: ]
[R24] Documentation for a code
list 2.5.7 [Rating: ]
[R25] Documentation for individual entries on
a code list 2.5.9 [Rating: ]
[R27 (Future)] Support for describing code
lists that cannot be enumerated 2.5.10 [Rating: ]
[R28 (Future)] Support for references to
equivalent code lists 2.5.12 [Rating: ]
[R30 (Future)] Support for users to attach
their own metadata to a code list 2.5.13 [Rating: ]
[R31 (Future)] Support for describing the
validity period of the values 2.5.14 [Rating: ]
[R32] Identifier for UN/CEFACT DE
3055. |
wd-ublclsc-codelistReqs-20050117.pdf
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]