RE: [ciq] FW: [Fwd: [ubl-comment] UBL LCSC Distribution]

[Ram Kumar <rkumar@msi.com.au>]

David


> Ram,
>
> As part of the Address work I've been doing for the US gov -
> it appears
> that ECCMA and the USPS have pretty much got a lock on
> "Postal Address".
>
> Where CIQ adds value is in a global address, and non-postal.
>
> My sudden and instant thought is that we need to align with ECCMA/USPS
> at the "top level" in our xAL schema - so that this structure mirrors
> theres,
> and more importantly provides users with consistency.

What do you mean by "Top Level"? Can you explain?. The next version of xAL
(V2.0)
is expected to provide provisions for supporting postal service specific
elements and
codes from ECCMA code tables. The XSD version will support for referencing
schemas from
other namespaces.

>
> Then underneath the top layer then we have the excellent extra details
> that you have derived.
>
> Attached spreadsheet gives a field level analysis,
>
> Cheers, DW.

I will go through your spreadsheet.

Regards

Ram
>