ubl — archive

[Tim McGrath]

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