[dsdl-discuss] Re: Potential use cases for complex value validation from ebXML

Martin

> <datatype>
> <enumeration ISO3166:short="KO" ISO3166:long="KOR">KO</enumeration>
> ...
> </datatype>
>
> would be better than using nested entries such as:
>
> <datatype>
> <enumeration>
> <ISO3166:short>KO</ISO3166:short>
> <ISO3166:long>KOR</ISO3166:long>
> </enumeration>
> ...
> </datatype>

Hang on! What is the authority that says that these country codes are
synonymous? ISO 3166! There might be a case for the kind of datatype
definition that you're describing, but it surely should NEVER be used to
define equivalences in someone else's value-space.

It seems to me that the fact that "KO" and "KOR" are codes for the same
geopolitical entity must be entirely determined by ISO 3166 and statements
to this effect elsewhere should always defer to ISO 3166. ISO in their
wisdom (or folly) may at some future date decide that "KO" and "KOR" are NOT
the same, in which case you might create an international incident by
continuing to suggest that they were!

You may still feel that there needs to be a mechanism that makes this
technically possible, even if it would state somewhere that defining
equivalences between values in value-spaces defined by someone else are
deprecated.

To my mind schemas should stick to defining constraints and not make
value-judgements by defining equivalences.

Francis

--
DSDL members discussion list
To unsubscribe, please send a message with the
command  "unsubscribe" to dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org
(mailto:dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org?Subject=unsubscribe)