At 2009-05-13 19:15 +0100, Anthony B. Coates (DES) wrote:
>Very good news from the recent UN/CEFACT Forum in Rome. ICG will be
>publishing the UN/CEFACT code lists using genericode. I had a reasonably
>busy week discussing this with them via e-mail, and the genericode 2.0
>proposal that I recently sent to the CLRTC list included the changes that
>they need to support this.
I didn't see any narrative to guide me in what the changes were, so
I've been putting off looking at it.
>So, if everyone is happy with what I sent, I
>now have to get cracking with updating the specification document to
>match. How does that sound?
Please change the namespace through the following sequence as you
produce drafts:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/codelist/ns/genericode/cd-2.0/
http://docs.oasis-open.org/codelist/ns/genericode/cd2-2.0/
http://docs.oasis-open.org/codelist/ns/genericode/cd3-2.0/
I eventually found only that a code list set can now have an embedded
set of code lists (and I see the repaired identification).
I gather from what I see that a code list set with embedded lists can
be a simple wrapper of standalone code lists, but having declared
column and key identifiers as xsd:ID that would only work if the
column specifications were mutually-exclusively-id-valued.
So if I want a code list set with a set of common column and key
definitions, can I successfully process the attached document? I've
tried to distill common column specifications (and I didn't check my
work closely, so forgive obvious errors).
It validates (with the above change to the namespace), but I'm unsure
if it is the correct usage.
Is the goal for <CodeListSet> with embedded lists *just* to be a
container of otherwise independent code list specifications, or can
it be used to streamline or "standardize" the way a set of code lists
is specified by distilling out common column specifications?
It seems awkward to have to uniquefy all of the column specifications
when trying to aggregate multiple code lists into a set.
What were the use-cases coming from UN/CEFACT that necessitated these
chanages? Knowing the requirements would help assess if your changes
satisfactorily meet the requirements.
Thanks for your comments on this.
. . . . . . . . . . Ken
