Re: [ubl-lcsc] Aligning 'address' with CIQ xAL

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

whilst i beleive it is mappable, it is not unambiguously mappable.  For 
example, it would rely on using the correct 'type' for Locality where it 
represents  a City, Province or District.

In addition, there are several ways you could  transform a UBL 'Address' 
to an xAL one.  However, this is not as problematic as it may appear. 
 For example an xAL Address to a PO Box  can be structured several ways 
in xAL as well!

Does anyone else have a view on this?

Alan.Stitzer@marsh.com wrote:

>Tim,
>
>I am partial to the way we have it now.  I think that as long as xAL is
>mappable to what we have things should be ok...
>
>
>
>____________________
>Alan Stitzer
>Technical Analyst
>Marsh USA Inc.
>1133 Avenue of the Americas
>New York, NY 10036-2774
>Phone: (561) 743-1938
>Fax: (561) 743-1993
>Internet: Alan.Stitzer@marsh.com
>____________________
>
>
><<< Memo from tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au@Internet on 22 October, 2002,
>12:34:44 PM Tuesday >>>
>
>
>tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au@Internet on 22 Oct 2002, 12:34 Tuesday
>
>To:    ubl-lcsc
>cc:      (bcc: Alan Stitzer)
>Subject:    [ubl-lcsc] Aligning 'address' with CIQ xAL
>
>
>The attached spreadsheet shows the current way we model addresses and
>contrasts this with the way the OASIS CIQ xAL vocabulary would express
>the same components.
>
>The question to the group is do we wish to introduce the necessary
>structures to align ourselves more tighly to xAL or remain with our
>legacy view fro xCBL?
>
>--
>regards
>tim mcgrath
>fremantle  western australia 6160
>phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142
>
>
>(See attached file: normalized components address using xAL.xls)
>
>
>To:    ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org@Internet
>cc:     (bcc: CN=Alan Stitzer/OU=NYC-NY/OU=US/OU=Marsh/O=MMC)
>From:  tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au@Internet
>
>
>  
>

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142