Re: TC154 vote on NWI - your approval needed

[Henry Lowe <hlowe@omg.org>]

Hi William,

I didn't know it had been revised recently, but it sounds as 
though not much has changed -- the 4 digits and 14 characters 
is what I was referring to.  There are losts of URL which are 
longer than 14 characters.  As I said, for legacy, fine, but 
I wouldn't advocate using it for anything new.  We should, and 
are, going URNs which will accommodate URL and IORs (we wouldn't 
want to leave those out :-)

Best regards,
Henry

PS: I removed 154 as I'm not a member of that list and messages 
just bounce.
---------------------------------------------
At 08:26 AM 12/12/2000 -0500, William J. Kammerer wrote:
>Dear Henry:
>
>I don't know how old ISO 6523 is, though it is identified as ISO/IEC
>6523:1998, so it must have had something done to it in the recent past.
>
>And ISO 6523 doesn't appear to have limited range for IDs:  the ICD
>(which identifies the organizations assigning the IDs,  like the EAN) is
>four digits long, enough to accommodate thousands of authorities.  The
>organization code itself is up to 14 characters long, long enough for
>most coding schemes (e.g., EAN, DUNS, etc.).
>
>Use of ISO 6523 saves us (ebXML)  the trouble of enumerating qualifiers
>for (sender and receiver) logical IDs which identify the authorities
>responsible for identification codes.  Otherwise, we'd be in the same
>boat as X12 and UN/EDIFACT - having to assign new qualifiers as new
>authorities pop up.  Let the EDIRA have the headache;  I believe that is
>what ANSI is voting on, referred to in my last message.
>
>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: "Henry Lowe" <hlowe@omg.org>
>To: "William J. Kammerer" <wkammerer@foresightcorp.com>
>Cc: <tc154TAG@disa.org>; "Gaile L. Spadin" <gspadin@disa.org>; "ebxml
>transport" <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>; <sc32-1TAG@disa.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 8:09 AM
>Subject: Re: TC154 vote on NWI - your approval needed
>
>
>Hi ebXML TRP folk,
>
>Not sure what this really has to do with TRP, but 6523 (as I've said
>before) is old and has a limited range for IDs.  For historic reasons,
>we may want to support it in URNs with TRP, but I would not suggest
>changing what we already have to accommodate it (if that is necessary,
>which it probably isn't -- it's been years since I actually read 6523).
>
>Best regards,
>Henry
>
>
>
>