RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Tag structure discussion kick-off

Hello Folks,

After listening in on my first teleconference I would like to add my opinion
to the discussion on UIDs and highly structured names. I have listed UIDs as
my first priority as I feel that this is more important than having highly
structured names (which I feel are necessary as well). I have had a number
of years experience in inventory management at the retail level and we have
found that a Universal Identifier such as a barcode to be invaluable
reference. One only worries about the bar code when beginning to construct a
stock management system. If one is not present a number is invented for the
product so that it can conform with the system. UIDs are a way of life in
the business world and we would be remiss in not including them, especially
if one of our aims is to be ebXML compliant. As with ebXML, these numbers
should not have any semantic meaning what so ever. It is a similar practice
that I have used in the construction of stock management systems in the
retail and hospitality sectors. When I find that this methodology has not
been used, the item "numbers" are confusing and often the system designers
run out of numbers, thus breaking their methodology and thus meaning. While
UDEF UIDs seem to be logical and are designed to be unique to someone
familiar with UDEF, they would appear to a lay person as confusing and
present a new "language" to learn. This may present a barrier to a person or
entity taking up UBL. Secondly giving the UIDs a semantic meaning would not
be compliant with ebXML.

This then leads us to the issue of structured names. I feel the most
important issue is to present UBL names, which are the most visible part of
UBL, in a highly structured manner in order to have as much semantic clarity
as possible. This makes the semantic meaning of the names very precise and
understandable to the users of UBL. This also has a parallel to my
experience in naming stock items. In practice we follow the
ObjectClassPropertyTermRepresentationTerm methodology as ISO 11179-5 and
ebXML uses. So we are presented with the option of using a naming convention
and methodology that is clear and represented by an international standard
for UBL. The only draw back, as presented by others, is the possible length
of the names and the computer memory "space" the names may use. As we are in
an era that no longer concerns itself with every bit and byte and knowing
the future will be less concerned, I feel we should err on the side of
semantic clarity and adopt the ISO 11179-5 methodology.

Regards,

John C Dumay