MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ubl message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: Customisation Document
On 04/21/2004 03:06 PM, Stephen Green wrote:
> Thanks Eduardo. It now makes sense that context values would in fact
> be coded enumerations. I just couldn't see the link between the two.
> I guess it probably did no harm to draw attention to this rather clever
> use of codes for context drivers as it helps clarify the section asking
> that there be controlled vocabulary of the context values. This shows
> how that can be done. I wonder if it is apparent enough (though it might
> be too late now) or whether something could be added to the paragraph
> about control of vocabulary for contexts to underline the use of coded
> values in achieving such controlled vocabulary. This is if I've got the
> right grasp of the association with codes of course.
Yes and no ;)
In section 3.3 the guidelines say:
"There is no pre-set list of values for each driver. Users are free at this
point to use whatever codification they choose, but they should be consistent;
therefore while not obliged to do so, communities of users are strongly
encouraged to always use the same values for the same context (that is,
those who use "U.S.A" to indicate a country in the North American Continent,
should not intermix it with "US" or "U.S." or "USA"). And *if a particular
standardized codification is used, it should also be identified in the
documentation.* (Some standard sets of values are provided in the CCTS
specification.)"
Emphasis mine. The end of this section refers specifically to how to identify
that 'standardized codification'. I always assumed that the proximity of the
two paragraphs was enough to make things clear, but apparently not. Perhaps
the sentence "For each of the context drivers (Geopolitical, IndustryClassification,
etc.) the following characteristics should also be specified" should be changed
to read:
"For each of the context drivers (Geopolitical, IndustryClassification, etc.)
the following characteristics should also be specified with reference to its value"
Would that make things clearer?
Jon, is it too late to make this change? If not, let me know so I can also
change the original.
Thanks.
>
> Steve
>
>