RE: CIQ Call

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

Vincent

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vincent Buller [mailto:vincent@and.nl]
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 2:39 AM
> To: 'Ram Kumar'; ciq@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: CIQ Call
>
>
> Hi Ram, all,
>
> first, I did not have time yet to dive into the details of
> both specs and
> will not before the call either. With the time to our planned
> 0.5 release
> nearing I would prefer to have the discussion focus on the
> what, how and
> when and leave the details for later e-mails.

>
> For one, I believe that we should first discuss integration
> of GlobalAddress
> into NAML to make xNAL (I believe we would call it that,
> right?), and leave
> element-level discussions for later. Discussion topics there
> would be how
> tight the integration of Name (person or company) and Address
> should be.

Given that we are here talking about Customer Profile/Information
Management,
Name and address are the most important components.

> Your remark concerning our Firm element reinforces my belief here.
> Firm/Company (I would prefer the neutral name Organization to
> get the taste
> of for-profit out) is an essential part of the postal information, but
> whether this should be part of the address or moved into the
> Name part is
> open for discussion.

We can discuss about this. The reason I question about firm is that the
name of the firm that delivers mails must not be part of an address as
it is part of the name component. When you look at NAML, the name component
is separated out from address component. This helps organisations that deal
with only addresses (like yours) to standardise the addresses as there is
no tight integration between name and address.

>
> I even believe looking at it the other way around is easier: Take an
> Address, and insert into that the naming information. This
> would better
> support automated address validation, as sometimes a name is
> an essential
> part of the address and sometimes it isn't.

Well, there is no customer record that has only an address component
and no name component. If there is an address without a name, probably,
it will be a part of a postal reference/address file for address validation
purposes. We have to be clear here that we are concentrating on
managing CUSTOMER DATA/INFORMATION and therefore, name and
address is crucial. Address validation tools can use our standard to
represent
the addresses in a standard way. But the intention of this standard is not
to give priority to address validation process.

>XML specification
> languages are
> still at their best describing hierarchical relations inward
> (i.e. name
> *within* address, and when it is mandatory). GlobalAddress
> structure is
> currently verifyable using DTDs or Schema and I would prefer
> to keep it that
> way.

We need to discuss this.

>
> Good news is that I have received raw sample data for 36
> countries from our
> data department, which I need to seriously process before
> release. I would
> appreciate you (Ram) send some samples of NAML, as this would
> aid in the
> integration.

>
> I would suggest the following topics for our call:
>
> - ebXML
Low priority at the moment.

> - CEN/UPU
This is important.

> - Integration of GlobalAddress and NAML and further detailed
> timeline to
> publication 0.5

This is important

> - Use of Schema
> - Security update
Hope John has something for us.

We also need to seek the help of OASIS in getting other organisations/groups
working with us. I strongly believe that it is OASIS responsibility to
approach there
groups and promote our work to them to get their co-operation rather than
the
members of a TC running around and trying to get it touch with these groups.
We
will discuss about this in our meeting.

Regards

Ram


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ram Kumar [mailto:rkumar@msi.com.au]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 5:03 AM
> > To: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: Meeting with Holger Wandt, CEN
> >
> >
> > Vincent
> >
> > Did you manage to look at the comparision table (AND and MSI DTDs)
> > that I sent to you earlier? Given that I could not fit in
> some of the
> > address
> > elements of AND into NAML, I am seeking your help regarding it.
> >
> > I look forward to the conference call on 22nd Feb. (your day) to
> > discuss about it and also about your meeting with Mr.Wandt.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Ram
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ciq-request@lists.oasis-open.org
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ciq-request@lists.oasis-open.org
>