[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] Simple description of XML-Spreadsheet format
At 2008-10-23 11:20 +0800, Chin Chee-Kai wrote: >I also don't think UBL should formally endorse/encourage the use of >another format (standard or otherwise) which doesn't follow UBL's >own NDR, especially more so when we're talking about finding a >non-primary supporting format to hold the cell values of normative IDD. Forgive me for ever giving the impression that Crane's collection of genericode files for the IDD in any way represents endorsement or choice by the UBL TC. Reviewing my announcements, I'm quite confident I never mentioned these files were TC resources, and I've made sure to preface the package ZIP with "Crane-" and it is only available from Crane's web site. The committee had and has nothing to do with these resources beyond publishing the IDD spreadsheets on which the resources are based. It was my choice to use genericode to represent the IDD in Crane's resources, so I'll take responsibility for the shoe-horning of standards in our work that you've described. That I happened to contribute to the TC effort by using Crane's processes for reporting on the consistency and completeness of the spreadsheets is a byproduct of having created Crane's genericode resources ... after all, Jon asked committee members to review the package for accuracy. I created these resources for my own use (I needed an XML representation to augment Crane's UBL summary reports, another issue of which is due out later today if I can find the time) and I took the opportunity to build in some consistency checks. I published the resources to be useful for any other developers who may find them useful. All power to those developers who find UBLish resources more useful than mine! Reviewing the focus of my post to the UBL TC, I was primarily reporting my findings in response to Jon's request ... the availability of the package was secondary. But though it was Crane's decision to use genericode, I would not subscribe to a UBL policy of rejecting XML vocabularies that do not follow UBL's own NDR. After all, horses for courses. If the OASIS UBL TC endorses one set of criteria for vocabulary design and the OASIS Code List Representation TC endorses another set of criteria for vocabulary design, where is the concern? They each had their own reasons, and legacy adaptation is often an important consideration. Given the UBL TC needed an XML representation for code lists, it should be lauded for avoiding an NIH (Not Invented Here) attitude of developing its own XML code list vocabulary using its NDRs and for embracing an existing XML representation (with whatever conventions) suitable for the purpose. I know of organizations adopting the UBL NDRs for creating their own new vocabularies, but I'll assume they are creating new vocabularies in the absence of having suitable vocabularies already available. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken -- Upcoming XSLT/XSL-FO hands-on courses: Wellington, NZ 2009-01 Training tools: Comprehensive interactive XSLT/XPath 1.0/2.0 video Video sample lesson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrNjJCh7Ppg Video course overview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTiodiij6gE G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/ Male Cancer Awareness Nov'07 http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/bc Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]