ubl — archive

Genericode files and URIs naming rules

From: Ken Holman <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:25:00 -0000

Thank you, Roberto, for your continued input on these issues. At 2006-08-30 07:59 +0200, [email protected] wrote: >this is a question for the new Code List TC. Actually, you have correctly directed your question to the "code list task group" of the UBL TC ... though we haven't formally named them as such I've been distinguishing the "UBL code list task group" and the "UBL customization task group" as informal projects within UBL without formal subcommittees formed such as "UBL Small Business Subcommittee (SBSC)" or "Human Interface Subcommittee (HISC)". To me, the task groups are just collections of interested parties within the full TC that "report" to and through the full TC. The "new Code List TC" referenced in the Pacific call minutes is a separate OASIS Technical Committee, the Code List Representation TC (CLRTC): http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=codelist We've had a very successful inaugural meeting and we are hoping to move quickly through the OASIS process of bringing genericode 0.4 up to a genericode 1.0 and published it as a committee specification and OASIS standard. We then will look at what more can be addressed in this area. The committee is looking at genericode *in and of itself* to ensure it is useful in many contexts, including UBL, but there are no UBL-specific action items in the new Code List >Is it possible to change the genericode file and URI naming rules to be >similar the XSDs ? This is a question for our UBL TC since this regards *using* genericode rather than *defining* genericode. You have focused on the use of either "-2" or "-2.0" in various contexts of identifiers in UBL 2, and I believe one of the two issues you have raised needs changing while the other does not. >e.g. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Actual XSD file naming > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >URI: urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:Catalogue-2 > >Filename: UBL-Catalogue-2.0.xsd > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Actual Genericode file naming > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >URI: urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:codelist:gc:AccountTypeCode-2.0 > >Filename: AccountTypeCodeType.gc > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Genericode File and URI naming proposal (same as XSDs) > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >URI: urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:codelist:gc:AccountTypeCode-2 > >Filename: AccountTypeCode-2.0.gc > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >I also do not have clear the reason why the version is specified into a >different way on XSD filenames and URIs: > >-2.0 or just -2 Because (in my mind) the URI of a namespace and the URI of an artefact are two different things and have different conventions: I've come to the conclusion in all of the debates of namespace URI strings that it is suitable for the initial release of the "family of UBL 2 releases of vocabularies" to have "-2", after which newly-introduced constructs will have qualified versions "-2.1", "-2.2", etc. The artefacts, themselves, however need to be distinguished as the artefacts released with the initial release of UBL 2.0, so the URI strings identifying particular artefacts, and the *filenames* of those artefacts, correctly end with "-2.0". This is reflected in the qDT URI strings for the listSchemeURI (and upcoming listURI) value. So I don't believe we need to change the URI strings: the "-2" values that you see are for namespaces and the "-2.0" values that you see are for artefacts. >This is only a personal idea, I think simplicity and homogeneity are >essential for a global acceptance of UBL. I agree, but homogeneity would only be useful when we are talking about the same kind of thing, which I believe is not the case for the URI strings. But I now believe you *are* correct about the file names of the genericode files not currently having "-2.0" and they should have "-2.0". This will not change the contents of the defaultCodeList.xsl file, but they will change the lists of files in the index.html file. If no-one else has any objections, then I will go through the cl\ directory of PRD3 and ensure the filenames of the genericode artefacts end in "-2.0.gc" ... and I will supply Jon with new lists of filenames for index.html. If someone does have concerns, *please* speak up quickly! >I hope it is useful. Very useful, Roberto! Thank you. For many months I've been anxious to get the input of members on issues of this nature. I hope that I have accurately reflected what has not really been stated explicitly but has been assumed. . . . . . . . . . . . Ken -- UBL/XML/XSLT/XSL-FO training: Vårø, Denmark 2006-10-02/06,11-20/24 UBL International 2006 2006-11-13/17 http://www.ublconference.com World-wide corporate, govt. & user group UBL, XSL, & XML training. G. Ken Holman mailto:[email protected] Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995) Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05 http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal