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] Code list metadata

we have to tread carefully here because the maintenance procedures for these inside CEFACT are complex and we need to ensure the correct identification to the canonical versions.

for example, i suspect the 66411 may be to reflect the UN/EDIFACT element number 6411 "Measurement unit code" with the extra 6 prepended to denote UNECE as the agency responsible. following this model the Packaging type code number would be 7065 "Package type description code" prefixed with 6, so 67065.

so yes, there is duplication and inconsistency but staying aligned with UN/EDIFACT is a good idea. This includes using the word 'Revision' to be really clear that Version is the same piece of metadata.

On 17/11/12 7:02 AM, G. Ken Holman wrote:
Fellow UBL TC members,

Today I'm struggling with list-level metadata for our code lists for UBL 2.1.

In UBL 2.0, we oriented our list-level metadata around UN/CEFACT for those code lists that matched the enumerations baked into the schemas. Consider, for example, the Units of Measure list, UN/ECE Recommendation 20:

      <LongName xml:lang="en">Unit Of Measure</LongName>
      <LongName Identifier="listID">UN/ECE rec 20</LongName>
      <Version>Revision 4</Version>
<LongName xml:lang="en">United Nations Economic Commission for Europe</LongName>

I cannot see where the version information came from in the schema. And I note two concepts of version: "Revision 4" (in <Version>) and "2001-update" (in <CanonicalVersionUri>).

For UN/ECE Recommendation 21, the Packaging Type list, we used UBL metadata:

      <LongName xml:lang="en">Packaging Type</LongName>
      <LongName Identifier="listID">UN/ECE rec 21</LongName>
      <Version>Revision 5</Version>
<LongName xml:lang="en">United Nations Economic Commission for Europe</LongName>

In both cases I think the version information should not include the word "Revision", so I'm suggesting changing that.

What do we do about identification? Both code lists come from UN/ECE recommendations. One would think their identification would be very similar. I cannot correlate on the UN/ECE web site the UN/CEFACT schema reference to "66411" for the Units of Measure. Is there a similar reference for the Packaging Type?

Should we use the UN/ECE format for both? If so, for others that did not have that format in UBL 2.0?

Or should we use the UBL format for all code lists now that we don't have any UN/CEFACT XSD files with enumerations? Then we would change the identification approach for the other code list files that used to come from XSD enumerations.

There are no genericode files yet published on the UN/ECE web site, so we have to create our own.

Thank you for any discussion and guidance on this subject. I've got the mechanics all working, but I need help to know what should go into these files.

. . . . . . . . Ken

p.s. today I put together a utility to convert CSV files into genericode files, so anyone finding code list information should be able to easily create CSV without needing to think about the XML

Contact us for world-wide XML consulting and instructor-led training
Free 5-hour lecture: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/links/udemy.htm
Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Google+ profile: https://plus.google.com/116832879756988317389/about
Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal

To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-help@lists.oasis-open.org

fn:Tim McGrath
org:Document Engineering Services
title:Managing Director

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