Re: Units of Measure

["William J. Kammerer" <wkammerer@foresightcorp.com>]

I don't know who this Norman Walsh guy is.  Just because I quoted him in
one convenient context doesn't mean that I have to pay attention to him
in any other!

Maybe I was a little too emphatic on the code enumeration business.  Bob
Miller's example happened to use a particular code list which grates on
me - and that isn't Bob's fault, certainly.  But then Bob had to go
suggest a way of breaking down the semantics of code 'H' (or Hispanic),
"supported by a definition of the overall classification criteria (e.g.,
bloodline percent) and of the country/region origins that constitute the
class."  I know this is all the rage in Core Components, like breaking
down the pieces parts of a telephone number, when - golly gosh - all I
want is a damn telephone number.  BTW, is King Juan Carlos of Spain
considered "Hispanic"?  And if so, how would Bob's semantic analysis of
"Hispanic" account for Juan Carlos' pure Bourbon bloodline?

You'll see a lot of "code" lists in RosettaNet and OTA which contain
values pretty well spelled out rather than relying on short mnemonic
codes (e.g., "Only" or "Unacceptable" for various travel preferences in
OTA). This is probably okay.  But keep in mind that these are real XML
enumerations, and the attributes have to be spelled exactly as they
appear in the DTD.

I'm really thinking more of the "external" code lists, such as the
UN/ECE Rec. 20 Unit of Measurement, or X12 D.E. 355, or the ISO country
and currency codes, which have always used mnemonic codes. There is no
good reason to change what already works and are recognized standards.

William J. Kammerer
FORESIGHT Corp.
4950 Blazer Memorial Pkwy.
Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
+1 614 791-1600

Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
"Commerce for a New World"
-----Original Message-----
From: Rachel Foerster <rachelf@ix.netcom.com>
To: ebxml-core@lists.oasis-open.org <ebxml-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Sunday, July 09, 2000 5:18 PM
Subject: RE: Units of Measure


William,

Thanks for the clarification. Norman Walsh's statement which you've
quoted would seem to me to argue against abstract tags that would point
to either an X12 or UN/EDIFACT data element. Additionally, it would also
seem to argue against your belief that a code value from one of these
two standards be conveyed rather than some human-readable definition.
But then, as you've pointed out, look at all of the problems with the
variations on how a code definition could be stated.

This doesn't seem to point to a clear and easy path for on-the-fly
interoperability of XML-based documents, does it?

Rachel