MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
ubl-ndrsc message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Important eBTWG Code/CCT discussion
After reading (quickly, I admit) through this thread, I'm not sure
there's a lot of merit in the idea of unifying codes and identifiers at
some level. I would want to ask the question: What hard benefit might
come out of seeing one of them "derived from" the other or both of them
"derived from" a common ancestor somehow? For example, would there be
any processing code in common that could make use of this family
relationship?
I suspect the answer is that there's no benefit; what's more useful is
the particular pattern of supplementary components they each have, which
distinguishes rather than unifying them. Also, to me they simply seem
like different enough beasts (identifier semantics include uniqueness,
while code semantics convey classification according to a published
scheme) to justify keeping them separate. And this isn't even to
address the difficulties we've been having with understanding
identifiers on their own...
However, I may not have enough context to understand the argument being
made. Can you expound?
Eve
CRAWFORD, Mark wrote:
> */Many of you are not subscribed to the eBTWG CC listserve. The
> attached messages are from an ongoing discussion of the Core Components
> Supplementary Documents (CCSD) project team that is also doing a proof
> of concept for the core components. I think we need to watch their
> conversations as we may be able to apply some of their thinking with our
> own as we write our inputs to the CC Technical Specification project team./*
>
> */Mark/*//
--
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center eve.maler @ sun.com
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC