MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
ubl-ndrsc message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] Re: [ubl-comment] Code list rules document
From: "Eve L. Maler" <>
To: Philip Goatly <>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:59:46 -0400
This is a good question (and one that should be treated in the spec...).
This architecture doesn't prevent any hierarchical structuring of
codes that the agency might desire to reflect in the actual code data.
For example, this could be done with subelements in the inner code
element (done as a complex rather than a simple code content type), or
with punctuation as delimiters (done with pattern-matching on the simple
code content type, so that, say, hyphens are enforced as the separators).
However, my understanding is that often code lists have elaborate
classification hierarchies above the level of the actual code, *which
you can access by reference to the code* and which need not be baked
into the code string that appears in a message. For example, if 024581
(or 02-45-81 or <sub>02</sub><sub>45</sub><sub>81</sub> or whatever)
means "canned food, baked beans, non-fat", the code as a whole can be
treated as essentially opaque as far as the schema is concerned, while
still having a sophisticated hierarchy as a code list ontology/taxonomy.
So in practice, an agency, in addition to preparing a reuse-ready code
list module that could be pulled into vocabularies such as UBL, might
very well have one or more data-dictionary representations of the code
list that supply all of the definitions, parental relationships, etc.
Of course, there are various XML and non-XML formats already used for
formally defining code lists in this way. The UBL recommendations don't
try to address this use case at all, but rather try to ensure the actual
usage of codes in an instance. As an example, I believe the UNECE code
list schemas are never intended to have instances, so there are some
reuse criteria that they don't satisfy.
Does this satisfy your concern? If not, do you have suggestions on how
the spec should change?
Thanks,
Eve
Philip Goatly wrote:
> Sorry UB/SPSC should read UN/SPSC
>
> Cheers, Phil
>
>
