OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] Updated multi-lingual structure for IDD in genericode


Sorry to cross post - just wanted to submit as well as
suggest it.

I reckon for consistency there would best be use of the
ISO 11179 / CCTS naming rules applied to the term names.
Are ISO standards 11179 and 15000-5 appropriate here?
I have wondered why we don't apply them to codelist
values in UBL too - borderline suitability perhaps.
An alternative might be to stick with the UBL / CEFACT
metadata terms (the CCTS parameters schema terms from
the UBL and ATG2 implementations). Why not then use the
UBL model spreadsheets to model the terms and create the
the term names. I think UBL TC used this methodology for
the attribute names and of course did it for the element
names. Maybe do it for code value names in the future
too. I think there is a counter argument that code values
are content rather than model but that seems debatable
and just depending on how you look at it - to me code
values are sufficiently hard-wired to be part of the model
and not the same as other content, hence the codelist
methodology puts them in schema files even if Schematron
as well as WXS. I guess a stronger argument for 11179
being inappropiate for code values themselves is that they
are often constrained in other ways already (they have
legacy values such as EDI and/or numerics or abbreviations).
But the terms to be used in Ken's genericode implementation
would not be so constrained already and could apply the
ISO and UBL naming. There would be scope to make a rule
variation on the UBL or ATG2 element or attribute naming
rules - perhaps just repeat the element rule, applying it
to these genericode terms. The precedent is UBL doing this
for the Supplementary Component attributes (and CCTS
parameters?).

Something for UBL 2.1 and for ATG2?
-- 
Stephen Green

Partner
SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice



Quoting "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>:

> At 2007-07-21 19:58 +0100, Stephen Green wrote:
>> Hi. Is there a controlled vocabulary for the terms
>> 'rownum', 'den', 'name', 'ubldef', etc? Do these terms need
>> a genericode file of their own? If so how would you define
>> the terms in that file? :-)
>
> Excellent question, Steve ... I just picked those names out of thin air.
>
> While you did smile in your post, it was something I wrestled with:  do
> I use abbreviations or full words or contractions of the IDD column
> titles?
>
> The genericode short names for the columns are already contractions of
> the IDD column titles ... which is why I came up with abbreviations for
> the column identifiers ... this is how version 2 looks:
>
>    <ColumnSet>
>       <Column Id="rownum" Use="required">
>          <ShortName>RowNumber</ShortName>
>          <Data Type="integer"/>
>       </Column>
>       <Column Id="den" Use="required">
>          <ShortName>DictionaryEntryName</ShortName>
>          <Data Type="normalizedString"/>
>       </Column>
>       <Column Id="name" Use="required">
>          <ShortName>UBLName</ShortName>
>          <Data Type="token"/>
>       </Column>
>       <Column Id="ubldef" Use="required">
>          <ShortName>UBLDefinition</ShortName>
>          <Data Type="string"/>
>       </Column>
>       <Column Id="card" Use="required">
>          <ShortName>Cardinality</ShortName>
>          <Data Type="string"/>
>       </Column>
>       <Column Id="type" Use="required">
>          <ShortName>ComponentType</ShortName>
>          <Data Type="token"/>
>       </Column>
>       <Column Id="terms" Use="required">
>          <ShortName>BusinessTerms</ShortName>
>          <Data Type="string"/>
>       </Column>
>       <Column Id="def" Use="required">
>          <ShortName>Definition</ShortName>
>          <Data Type="string"/>
>       </Column>
>       <Key Id="RowNum">
>          <ShortName>RowNum</ShortName>
>          <ColumnRef Ref="rownum"/>
>       </Key>
>       <Key Id="DEN">
>          <ShortName>DEN</ShortName>
>          <ColumnRef Ref="den"/>
>       </Key>
>    </ColumnSet>
>
> But I wonder about readers for whom English is not their first
> language.  Do you (or anyone else) have an opinion on this?  Would the
> following be more acceptable since it doesn't make any assumptions
> about column names and just uses the IDD column names?
>
>    <ColumnSet>
>       <Column Id="No." Use="required">
>          <ShortName>No.</ShortName>
>          <LongName xml:lang="EN">Number</LongName>
>          <Data Type="integer"/>
>       </Column>
>       <Column Id="DictionaryEntryName" Use="required">
>          <ShortName>DictionaryEntryName</ShortName>
>          <LongName xml:lang="EN">Dictionary Entry Name</LongName>
>          <Data Type="normalizedString"/>
>       </Column>
>       <Column Id="UBLName" Use="required">
>          <ShortName>UBLName</ShortName>
>          <LongName xml:lang="EN">UBL Name</LongName>
>          <Data Type="token"/>
>       </Column>
>       <Column Id="UBLDefinition" Use="required">
>          <ShortName>UBLDefinition</ShortName>
>          <LongName xml:lang="EN">UBL Definition</LongName>
>          <Data Type="string"/>
>       </Column>
>       <Column Id="Cardinality" Use="required">
>          <ShortName>Cardinality</ShortName>
>          <LongName xml:lang="EN">Cardinality</LongName>
>          <Data Type="string"/>
>       </Column>
>       <Column Id="ComponentType" Use="required">
>          <ShortName>ComponentType</ShortName>
>          <LongName xml:lang="EN">Component Type</LongName>
>          <Data Type="token"/>
>       </Column>
>       <Column Id="BusinessTerms" Use="required">
>          <ShortName>BusinessTerms</ShortName>
>          <LongName xml:lang="EN">Business Terms</LongName>
>          <Data Type="string"/>
>       </Column>
>       <Column Id="Definition" Use="required">
>          <ShortName>Definition</ShortName>
>          <LongName xml:lang="EN">Definition</LongName>
>          <Data Type="string"/>
>       </Column>
>       <Key Id="No.Key">
>          <ShortName>No.Key</ShortName>
>          <LongName xml:lang="EN">Number Key</LongName>
>          <ColumnRef Ref="No."/>
>       </Key>
>       <Key Id="DictionaryEntryNameKey">
>          <ShortName>DictionaryEntryNameKey</ShortName>
>          <LongName xml:lang="EN">Dictionary Entry Name Key</LongName>
>          <ColumnRef Ref="DictionaryEntryName"/>
>       </Key>
>    </ColumnSet>
> ...
>  <Row>
>     <Value ColumnRef="No.">
>        <SimpleValue>5</SimpleValue>
>     </Value>
>     <Value ColumnRef="DictionaryEntryName">
>        <SimpleValue>Address. Postbox. Text</SimpleValue>
>     </Value>
>     <Value ColumnRef="UBLName">
>        <SimpleValue>Postbox</SimpleValue>
>     </Value>
>     <Value ColumnRef="UBLDefinition">
>        <SimpleValue>A post office box number.</SimpleValue>
>     </Value>
>     <Value ColumnRef="Cardinality">
>        <SimpleValue>0..1</SimpleValue>
>     </Value>
>     <Value ColumnRef="ComponentType">
>        <SimpleValue>BBIE</SimpleValue>
>     </Value>
>     <Value ColumnRef="BusinessTerms">
>        <ComplexValue>
>           <idd:Value xml:lang="EN">PostBox, PO Box</idd:Value>
>           <idd:Value xml:lang="ES">Apartado postal</idd:Value>
>           <idd:Value xml:lang="IT">Casella Postale</idd:Value>
>        </ComplexValue>
>     </Value>
>     <Value ColumnRef="Definition">
>        <ComplexValue>
>           <idd:Value xml:lang="EN">A post office box number.</idd:Value>
>           <idd:Value xml:lang="ES">Número de apartado postal</idd:Value>
>           <idd:Value xml:lang="IT">Un numero di casella postale.</idd:Value>
>        </ComplexValue>
>     </Value>
>  </Row>
>
> The columns are unique and directly correlate to the spreadsheets ...
> and I'm only at version 0.2 of these experiments so I don't mind tuning
> this to make it better.  I'm getting more feedback than I anticipated.
>
> I think I now like the above better than what I had before.  Certainly
> to a non-English reader who is examining the IDD spreadsheets, the
> above would really be unambiguous.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts on this.
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken
>
> --
> Upcoming public training: XSLT/XSL-FO Sep 10, UBL/code lists Oct 1
> World-wide corporate, govt. & user group XML, XSL and UBL training
> RSS feeds:     publicly-available developer resources and training
> G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
> Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/
> Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
> Male Cancer Awareness Jul'07  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/bc
> Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org





[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]