Re: SV: [ubl-psc] Status of issues raised in November 2010

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

At 2011-02-15 08:45 +0100, Martin Forsberg wrote:
>Is it really possible to describe an area with just a set of 
>coordinates, without knowing how they are connected? (see the 
>attached picture). It should somehow at least be indicated that the 
>coordinates form the boundary of the area.

This very discussion was part of last night's Pacific TC call.

How do you feel about having the trading partner agreement specify 
how the points are connected when multiple points are specified?  It 
could be viewed as a business rule just like the calculation model is 
a business rule between two parties.

Note that independent of any such agreement the cbc:Description field 
is also available to specify how the location points are to be connected:

http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/prd1-UBL-2.1/mod/summary/reports/UBL-AllDocuments-2.1.html#t-CommonLibrary-1073

I wonder if even location type code could be used.  Two points make a 
line.  Three points make either a triangle or an arc or a full 
circle.  Four points make either your hourglass or a rectangle.  Two 
trading partners could agree that the location type code helps with 
the description.  Alternatively the location type code could mean 
some physical property of the location.

I think there are enough ways to distinguish between parties how the 
information is to be interpreted when there are many location coordinates.

I hope this helps.

. . . . . . . . . . . . Ken


--
Contact us for world-wide XML consulting & instructor-led training
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal