ubl-ndrsc — archive

[System]

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