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

[David RR Webber - XMLGlobal <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Message text written by Ram Kumar
>The UBL team has now come back to me with their first draft of
their specs. You can down load the specs. from the link provided
below. They are keen for us to go through it and provide
feedback to them. I will also go through it and let them know where
CIQ standards can be used in their framework. Please feel free to go
through their specs. and provide your feedback to ME. I will collect
your feedback and will mail it to the UBL team. 

This is an opprotunity for us to hav our standards re-used by another 
standards group as part of their overall framework.

The period for comments will close on Monday April 8th 2002.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

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.

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.

AddressCrosswalk Analysis.xls