Requirements for section 2.3

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

(Sorry, folks, I meant to send this out immediately after the meeting and 
never did so (but I thought I had).  I noticed this morning there were no 
comments to it, which is understandable since it was never sent!

I was confused about the nature of the as-yet-undocumented requirements and 
hoped to spark some discussion.  I'll try again!

................... Ken)

Comments for requirements document:

(1) - I've never heard of "DE 3055", and perhaps others hadn't 
either.  Googling for it I see it is a coded value of agency 
identifiers.  Knowing the code tells you the responsible agency for the 
code list values.  For example "5" is the International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO).  I gather it comes from the EDI world.

(2) - the UBL 1.0 draft had the concept of "private use" code lists, be 
they originating and modified from an existing code list or created out of 
thin air ... I'm thinking that a private use code list has private use 
codes, some of which might have come from standardized code lists and 
represent the same thing as found in the standardized code list, and some 
of which are synthesized for private use only.

The wording of the titles written so far includes the term "Proprietary 
codes", and I think that might be misleading (at least it is for me as I'm 
not sure what exactly the requirement is under "types of code lists" ... is 
it to support such codes?).

Once someone takes a standardized code list (from anywhere, does it matter 
where it comes from?) and makes *any* changes to it, it is no longer a 
standardized code list.  Mechanically, it is no different from any other 
code list, as all code lists need to be able to function the same 
way.  Other requirements ensure that it is uniquely identified, but isn't 
that as far as we have to go?  Do we need to go all the way down to the 
individual coded values?

Which leads me to the conclusion that this specification need only talk about:

  (a) - external unmodified code lists [R6]
  (b) - internal code lists (standardized by LCSC) [R7]
  (c) - private-use code lists (are origins important?)

That would create a requirement along the lines of:

  [] Private-use code lists

     The UBL library MUST accommodate the incorporation of private-use
     code lists where trading partners cannot meet specific business
     requirements after first trying to utilize, unchanged, either
     external or internal code lists.

I see that all of the requirements I offered during the call today to 
comment on are about codes, not code lists.

Do we need really need to worry about these?

2.3.4	Standardized codes whose code lists are managed by an agency from the 
code list DE 3055.

2.3.5	[R8] Proprietary codes whose code lists are managed by an agency that 
is identified by using a standard.

2.3.6	[R9] Proprietary codes whose code lists are managed by an agency that 
is identified without the use of a standard.

2.3.7	[R10] Proprietary codes whose code lists are managed by an agency 
that is specified by using a role or that is not specified at all.


--
North America (Washington, DC): 3-day XSLT/2-day XSL-FO 2004-03-15
-          (San Francisco, CA): 3-day XSLT/2-day XSL-FO 2004-03-22
Asia        (Hong Kong, China): 3-day XSLT/2-day XSL-FO 2004-05-17
Europe       (Bremen, Germany): 3-day XSLT/2-day XSL-FO 2004-05-24
Instructor-led on-site corporate, government & user group training
for XSLT and XSL-FO world-wide:  please contact us for the details

G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Breast Cancer Awareness  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc