[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Sex and Core Components
Back in December I recommended that the party gender be coded with ISO 5218:1977 Information Interchange-Representation of Human Sexes. See http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-core/200012/msg00014.html. Now I see from Mike Conroy's UML diagram that party gender.code details is now derived from code.details. How many classifications of sex are there? Come on: the standards folks went to the trouble to flit around to various exotic pleasure spots throughout the world to bring forth ISO 5218, and the least we should do is use it as the basis of the gender core component. Even UN/EDIFACT recognizes that there're only so many ways to describe gender, and notes that Data Element 3499 (Gender code) should use ISO 5218; see http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/d96b/tred/tred3499.htm. Except for the EDIFACT note and our own Martin Bryan, I would never have known that such an extensive code list existed. Martin is somewhat responsible for the information describing ISO 5218 at http://www.diffuse.org/medical.html#Sex. I'm going to have to make sure that ISO 5218 - the sex code - is included in the compendium of standards used in "IT-enablement" being addressed by the new international standard ISO/IEC 18022. By the way, the Initial Core Components Catalogue at Line 87 for location identification.details within location.details is specified with "R" in the "Required (R)" column, but has a MinMaxConstraints of 0..1. Is this what Paula Heilig was referring to when she said there's a difference between the requirements and the constraints? Or is it just a typo? If the latter, it's just one more reason to get rid of the "Required (R)" column. William J. Kammerer FORESIGHT Corp. 4950 Blazer Pkwy. Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305 +1 614 791-1600 Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/ "accelerating time-to-trade"
Powered by eList eXpress LLC