Re: Bizcodes - was (Re: SubmissionPackage DTD)

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

Message text written by Jon Bosak
>But why can't we just register "persona" or something like that?
What is it about a nonsense string that makes it easier to
register?

Consider:

   price           ebxml:pretium         ebxml:109384
   date            ebxml:dies            ebxml:799421
   size            ebxml:mensura         ebxml:796593
   weight          ebxml:pondus          ebxml:996324
   address         ebxml:locus           ebxml:582010

What makes the codes in the third column easier to register than
the ones in the second column?

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

OK John, this is at the heart of EDI over the years.  I've been calling
this
'folding'.  EDI spent a great deal of time creating folding.  What we need 
to do is balance the right mix of folding, with open usability.

Folding means taking lots of different industry use and folding their
separate definitions into one coherent model.  850 Purchase Order is the
classic case.  We really need selective 'unfolding', as folding is too 
restrictive.

Now - if you call something 'price' it invokes all kinds of knee-jerk stuff
from
people - is it tax paid, invoice, net, dealer, and so on!?

Is my price the same as your price?  It's better to go with a neutral code,
that avoids all these issues - and then people look at the exact
detailed description in the repository to determine if this 'price' really
is the one they want to associate and use.

Now the third column codes are easier to assign as they are simple
sequences, and also they can indicate groups.  0003, 0004, 0005, gives
me a hint that these normally travel around together (say as the fields
in an address).   Hybrids of course are possible - but my experience
is that it is best to avoid meaningful names - becuase CONTEXT is
everything.   Obviously Address is a classic example - is it Billing, or
Shipping address?

I'm not saying this is a perfect world - experience has shown however 
that this is an excellent functional compromise - to use exact neutral
codes to determine semantic definition, and then use human
readable terms for the context of the use.

I hope this is clearer!  I'm also planning to show specific examples
next week using the Bizcode DTD, that I have in draft right now.

Always easier to see specifics.  During the EDI/XML working
group we did two years ago with DISA X12, we reviewed the
EDI code and element tables - when you look at how these
are organized the 'fit' becomes obvious.

Also UDEF has studied the USGov information dictionaries,
and again concluded that the best approach is neutral codes.

Thanks for persisting with the obvious questions, all us 
EDI'rs have this internalized!

Thanks, DW.