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

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

At 2007-07-21 14:55 -0600, stephen.green@systml.co.uk wrote:
>Sorry to cross post - just wanted to submit as well as
>suggest it.

I'll follow this up just in the UBL committee because I don't think 
we should be cross posting.

Note that this genericode resource is not a UBL resource but just a 
Crane resource.  There was no specific commission that triggered its 
creation ... just something that came up in discussion with Roberto.

>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'm not sure they are ... the file is an exposition of the content of 
the IDD spreadsheets and nothing more.  I don't think I'm trying to 
model anything, and the column names in the spreadsheets are already 
names in the UBL spreadsheets (though I suppose "Alternate Business 
Terms" had to change to "Business Terms" in the IDD because the 
aren't alternatives to anything).

>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.

Fine ... but all I'm doing is exposing the content of the IDD 
spreadsheets using XML.  I'm not confident we are doing any modeling 
of information structures here ... the structures are just the 
columns of the spreadsheets.

>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.

I see them constrained by the spreadsheets whose content they are 
trying to express.

>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?).

Wouldn't those rules be applied when trying to come up with names out 
of the blue for abstract concepts, thus finding an appropriate name 
for a concept derived from describing the concept?

I don't see that happening with this genericode file.

>Something for UBL 2.1 and for ATG2?

Perhaps for discussion for code lists ... though I don't see a 
benefit because of my ignorance of 11179 application and exercise.  I 
look forward to hearing any feedback from others as yourself with 
just this experience.

Thanks, Steve!

. . . . . . . . . . . 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/o/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Cancer Awareness Jul'07  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal