Re: Bizcodes - was (Re: SubmissionPackage DTD)

[David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Message text written by Jon Bosak
>| 
| First 'personsname' may occur in multiple repositories
| with different meaning, and versions.  UNE030041 tells
| me that the owner is UNEDIFACT - so I go straight to
| the right repository, and entry 030041.

Why can't "UNE030041" be used in multiple repositories with
different meanings and versions?  I've looked at this string very
carefully and can't find that guarantee anywhere in it.

Jon
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Jon,

To continue this conversation - I realized that the simple example
I gave showed just the declaration of the Bizcode - not how you reference
to it.

Several options are obvious.  First is to use a namespace to 
qualify the URI of the location of the repository.  The second is
to similarly use an XLink/XPointer/XPath look up.

The use of XLink example is given in the technical references in the
repository white paper available from http://www.bizcodes.org/repository

The XLink syntax used is an earlier variant, so it is only similar too, not
exact
to, the latest W3C XLink RC spec's.  Once the W3C XLink is a definate
recommendation (presently), we'll go ahead and update that accordingly.

Anyway - this approach clearly empowers the business functional need
as per Stuart Campbell's excellent discussion earlier today.

Where people can have either formal or informal definitions, and then
share or align their formal definitions.

The three letter codes are an obvious means to denote the owner
organization.  Each such would then be responsible for the uniqueness
and validity of the definition.

I'm working on a formal list of business functional needs here, borrowing
from Stuarts points, and so this should help guide the use case 
analysis and resultant technical guidelines.

Thanks for spawning this thread of thoughts and being the catalyst needed.

DW.