Unification of Classification Systems WAS: Comments on ebXML Core Components forms

[Brian Hayes <Brian.Hayes@Commerceone.com>]

I would caution ebXML on *requiring* the use of ebXML standardized
classification schemes.  Consider following the UN/EDIFACT approach where
codes are accompanied with a reference to the agency that specifies the code
list.  

Requiring the use of standardized code lists is great for new
services/applications; they are problematic for legacy applications. 

Allowing code lists/agencies to be specified with the code has the advantage
of not requiring that application level services that generate documents be
forced to use (or map to) the "standard" code list.  Unfortunately, it does
burden the service that receives and processes documents with the need to
understanding multiple code lists. Of course, trading partners can agree to
only use certain code lists.

/Brian Hayes

-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 10:41 AM
To: Miller, Robert (GXS); ebXML Coordination
Cc: ebxml-core@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: Comments on ebXML Core Components forms


Message text written by "Miller, Robert (GXS)"
>We would like to adopt a coding scheme for
identifying these, but do not feel that ISIC is adequate, or than UNSPSC is
ready. Can anyone suggest a suitable classification scheme for identifying
relevant industries and processes?

Martin Bryan

<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Martin,

This is definately a big issue.  I've used UNSPSC 'live' and it has large
holes.  Then RosettaNet is creating its own dialetic/variant of UNSPSC.

>From the theory side a 10 digit, 2 digit pairing system is just not
adequate.

Is CEFACT or similar up to start yet another working group to resolve this?

Maybe this is something that the ebXML Coord group should also focus
on - its certainly a Gap, so goes into the Gap Analysis hopper.

Again - some of our participants in the Coord group could spin off a 
sub-group working on Unification of Classification Systems.
This certainly would be a major contribution assuming we could get
buy in from larger partners to support/use these.

Thanks, DW.