Fwd: UBL 1.1 Code List Requirements Review

--- Begin Message ---

From: 

To: 

Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:12:14 EST

Code List Enthusiasts:

 

We are working on the implementation of the requirements for a Universal 
Business Language (UBL) 1.1 version of the code list specification. At the end 
of the UBL 1.0 process, some of the proposed solution components were not 
approved. The reason for this was that there was a desire by the greater UBL 
committee to obtain better clarification / justification for the requirements 
set, and, the review of specific concerns with the detailed solution 
proposed.

 

The efforts of ROSETTANET, OAGIS, UBL, and AEX/CFI (see 
sourceforge.net/projects/aexdev and sourceforge.net/projects/cfidev), have all 
considered models for code lists (as well as many other groups). These groups 
listed have expressed a specific interest in the possibility of a collaboration 
to achieve a single specification that all can use. For this reason I am 
circulating this email widely recognizing that the present effort is being 
conducted under the auspices of the OASIS UBL committee.

 

To facilitate the discussion, I undertook an exercise as the editor with 
some help from a couple of discussions with other participants to try and 
clarify the requirements in the document. At this time, we want to conduct a 
canvas of interested parties to obtain some degree of support for the 
requirements for code lists.

 

We have not added or deleted requirements to date. We have only massaged 
the wording so that they were more understandable -- this will necessarily 
be a continuing process. Also, I would point out that the current set of 
requirements include those collected from the participation of all the UBL code 
list contributors and not a single view. I have taken my role as editor as that 
of aggregating requirements and not passing judgement on them. 

 

That being said, I believe the next step will involve obtaining some 
measure of support for the requirements by providing an email response that 
allows the reader to provide their judgement on a scale of 0-5 (0=not supported, 
5=highly supported, X=no opinion, ?=I don't understand this). During that canvas 
we will try to obtain the specific concerns with the proposed model(s) for 
further resolution.

 

Please review the attached draft (only so far as section 2 requirements). 
Then, please reply to this email with an indication of support for the 
inidividual requirements. For example, consider the requirement R1. Below is a 
annotation of the list below for that requirement with an optional comment 
added:

 

2.2.1    [Rating: 5] [R1] First-order business information 
entities

Note that the [5] is the 
rating I gave to this requirement.

Here is a 
comment about the proper way to state this requirement 
.............

Please add your ratings to the [Rating:  ] annotation of the requirements below. If you 
desire to comment further, simply type after the requirement. Use a rating scale of 0-5 (0=not supported, 5=highly supported, X=no 
opinion, ?=I don't understand this)

 

UBL Code List 1.1 Requirements 
Summary:

 

2.2        
Use and management of Code 
Lists

2.2.1     [Rating:  ] 
[R1] First-order business information 
entities

2.2.2     [Rating:  ] 
[R2] Second-order business information 
entities

2.2.3     [Rating:  ] 
[R3] Data and Metadata model separate from 
Schema representation

2.2.4     [Rating:  ] 
[R4] XML and XML Schema 
representation

2.2.5     [Rating:  ] 
[R5 (Future)] Machine readable data 
model

2.2.6     [Rating:  ] 
[R6 (Future)] Conformance test for code 
lists

2.2.7     [Rating:  ] 
[R6a] Supplementary components or metadata 
available in instance documents

2.3        
Types of code 
lists

2.3.1     [Rating:  ] 
[R7] UBL maintained Code 
List

2.3.2     [Rating:  ] 
[R8] Identify and use external standardized code 
lists

2.3.3     [Rating:  ] 
[R9] Private use code 
list

2.4        
Technical requirements of Code 
Lists

2.4.1     [Rating:  ] 
[R10] Semantic 
clarity

2.4.2     [Rating:  ] 
[R11] 
Interoperability

2.4.3     [Rating:  ] 
[R12] External 
maintenance

2.4.4     [Rating:  ] 
[R13] 
Validatability

2.4.5     [Rating:  ] 
[R14] Context rules 
friendliness

2.4.6     [Rating:  ] 
[R15] Upgradability / Extensibility without 
modifying underlying references

2.4.7     [Rating:  ] 
[R16] 
Readability

2.4.8     [Rating:  ] 
[R17] Code lists must be unambiguously 
identified

2.4.9     [Rating:  ] 
[R18 (Future)] Ability to prevent extension or 
modification

2.5        
Design Requirements of Code List Data 
Model

2.5.1     [Rating:  ] 
[R19] A set of the values (codes) forms each 
code list

2.5.2     [Rating:  ] 
[R20 (Future)] Multiple lists of equivalent 
values (codes) for a code list

2.5.3     [Rating:  ] 
[R21] Unique identifier(s) for a code 
list

2.5.4     [Rating:  ] 
[R22] Unique identifiers for individual 
entries in a code list

2.5.5     [Rating:  ] 
[R23] Names for a code 
list

2.5.6     [Rating:  ] 
[R24] Documentation for a code 
list

2.5.7     [Rating:  ] 
[R25] Documentation for individual entries on 
a code list

2.5.8     [Rating:  ] 
[R26 (Future)] The ability to import, extend, 
and/or restrict values and elements of other code 
lists

2.5.9     [Rating:  ] 
[R27 (Future)] Support for describing code 
lists that cannot be enumerated

2.5.10       [Rating:  ] 
[R28 (Future)] Support for references to 
equivalent code lists

2.5.11       [Rating:  ] 
[R29 (Future)] Support for individual values 
to be mapped to equivalent values in other code 
lists

2.5.12       [Rating:  ] 
[R30 (Future)] Support for users to attach 
their own metadata to a code list

2.5.13       [Rating:  ] 
[R31 (Future)] Support for describing the 
validity period of the values

2.5.14       [Rating:  ] 
[R32] Identifier for UN/CEFACT DE 
3055.

 

Marty 
Burns,

Hypertek, 
Inc. For NIST

p 
1(301)315-9101

c 
1(301)257-9101

e 

wd-ublclsc-codelistReqs-20050117.pdf

--- End Message ---