A code is a code since the processor needs to refer to a look-up table to
convert it to its value. An identifier contains the value between the start
tag and the end tag.
The difference is in the behavior of the data and what the processor does
with the data. Therefore, I must disagree with the notion that a code could
play the role of an identifier. I know that X12 has failed to use the notion
of identifier since the term "code" is used (and mis-used) extensively and
in some instances should instead be using the term "identifier." In general,
where X12 uses the term "number" it can usually be interpreted as an
identifier. For example, "communications number" - Data Element 364 in X12 -
would become "communications identifier" NOT "communications code"
Ronald L. Schuldt
Senior Staff Systems Architect
Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave. #F521 MP DC5694
Littleton, CO 80127
303-977-1414
-----Original Message-----
From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 10:37 AM
To: Schuldt, Ron L
Cc:
Subject: Re: [ubl-comment] UBL comments on ebXML Core Components
Technical Specification v1.8
Ron,
You're right that codes get mapped to meanings, and that identifiers
convey uniqueness. But I think the proposal as stated is defensible.
For example, it makes the point that sometimes codes can "play the role"
of an identifier (that is, sometimes you have a piece of information
that both can be mapped to a meaning and, when used on a particular
object, indicates uniqueness of tha
t object). So making them be a
mutually exclusive choice is unhelpful.
The suggestion in the proposal is to allow identifiers to be
*represented* in a variety of ways (at the RT level, e.g. as Codes or
Names), while allowing the identifier-ness to be captured slightly
higher up (at the property level). So nothing is being lost.
Eve
Schuldt, Ron L wrote:
