Re: [ubl] Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Proposal 3 in our CCTS feedback

MHonArc v2.5.2 -->

ubl message

[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [Elist Home]

Subject: Re: [ubl] Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Proposal 3 in our CCTS feedback

From: "Michael C. Rawlins" <>

To: 

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:50:46 -0500

Ooh!  Mikey likes it!

Thanks, Tim, for doing the research on this.

Tim McGrath wrote:

> Before we get too confrontational and Arofan starts opening the 
> armoury, let us take stock of what ISO 11179 says and how it has been 
> interpreted for CCTS.
>
> ISO11179-5 (many thanks to Mark who posted this.. 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-lcsc/200201/msg00020.html ) 
> makes three key points about representation terms:
> 1. A representation term is a component of a data element name which 
> describes the form of representation of the data element. 
> 2. Each term is developed from a controlled word list or a taxonomy. 
> 3. This term describes the form of the set of valid values of a data 
> element. 
>
> The CCTS states:
> "A representation term defines the type of valid values for an 
> information entity. " (CCTS lines 1116 and 1239) and "The type of 
> valid values for a Basic Core Component." (CCTS Definition of Terms 
> line 2167)
> This changes "the form of the set of"(point 3.) to "the type of".  It 
> is actually quite a significant difference that dilutes the meaning of 
> ISO11179 and hence leads into the need for CC Types to be defined as well.
>
> So i am not convinced that CCTS is "using RT as defined in ISO11179" 
> as sacredly as Mike suggested - they have interpreted the definition 
> to suit their application.  What we are proposing is a change in this 
> interpretation.  I think they were nearer to the definition we mean 
> with ...
> "The Representation Term is the part of a Core Component name that 
> describes the form of valid values in which the business information 
> is expressed in a data item" (CCTS line 1313)
>
> In fact, looking at this again, I wonder if  just asking them to adopt 
> the original ISO 11179 definition is what we really mean!??
>
>
>
>
>
> Gregory, Arofan wrote:
>
>> Bill:
>>
>> I will play devil's advocate here for a moment.
>>
>> ISO 11179 is a sacred cow, and "Representation Term" is the thing 
>> that connects the CC work to 11179.
>>
>> CCT was invented by the CC group as a convenience, to describe the 
>> supporting properties of an RT.
>>
>> If you apear to be messing with RTs (say, by relegating them to an 
>> aspect of the naming conventions while replacing their technical 
>> function) then you will be violating the sacred donkey (ooops - 
>> sacred cow!)
>>
>> It's a damned-if-you-do & damned-if-you-don't situation. I recommend 
>> that we stick to our guns, and point out that CCTs are unneeded, and 
>> that RTs are both needed and need to be specifically extended and 
>> clarified for their application here.
>>
>> We do, after all, have some smart people in positions of power on the 
>> CC editing team, and they are ultimately the ones who will have to 
>> make it all fit together. I think we should submit what Eve has proposed.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Arofan
>>
>>