RE: [ciq] UBL addresses

["Ram Kumar" <RKumar@msi.com.au>]

Hi Colin,

Following are my personal views only and not on behalf of CIQ TC.

> 
> Hi Ram
> Yes I am now getting  sense of what they have done.
> 
> It seems they have replaced the less popular element names 
> from xAL v2 such as "thoroughfare" with more user friendly 
> "StreetName", Locality with CityName etc.

This shows what will happen if people with no deep knowledge
of name and address try to define a standard for it. Thoroughfare and
Locality are the correct and generic terms to be used (see all
postal references) for addresses as
there are no streets or cities in some countries. For example, in some
areas in Thailand, addresses are defined with Canals and
Banks. How can you "semantically" call these as street? 
A thoroughfare could be a street, road, lane, canal, bank, river,
street, highway, etc

There are no cities in some countries such as Singapore. But
locality makes sense as a locality could be a small area, a suburb,
a county, a province, a region, district, town, village, state, etc.

> 
> I can see the sense in both approaches, but as you say, it 
> doesn't make much sense to be different, because it defeats 
> interoperability.

True. 
 
> 
> So what are the implications long term?

Name and address is very common for any business that deal with
customer/party of whatever one calls it. So, CIQ will remain as 
generic as possible, application independent and importantly, 
global (capable of handling 204+ country addresses in detail)
to support different business requirements whether it is to do with
shipment or invoicing or postal business, ot simple user registration, 
data parsing and matching, validation, etc.

> 
> If organisations were to use both standards they would either 
> have to map the elements or not use the UBL name and address 
> elements and declare CIQ's instead?  

With UBL, u can define your own BIE's or components and still use UBL.
At the end of the day, standards, its quality and technicality
of it does not matter. It is the politics of standards that matters. 
This is what I have learnt in the past 5 years.  
People will continue to re-invent the wheel when it comes to standards.

Take my word. A single standard like UBL or OAG or whatever, will not
be be able to take on the world.  Users will expect heterogenity. Users 
will prefer to interoperate with multiple set of standards and this is
why 
interoperability of data at the "semantic" level is becoming more
important. 
You have your own standard implementation and I will have my own, but we
should 
be able to interoperate. This is what users want to see nowadays rather
than 
being dictated on what standard they should use. 

> 
> Is that about the size of it?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Colin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ram Kumar [mailto:RKumar@msi.com.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, 28 September 2004 5:54 p.m.
> To: colin.wallis@ssc.govt.nz; ciq@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ciq] UBL addresses
> 
> 
> Hi Colin,
> 
> If you look at the UBL-reusable-1.0 spreadsheet that defines 
> the reusable components (enclosed in this email), you will 
> notice that most of the address elements have been defined 
> (look at the definitions) from xAL V2.0 of CIQ. CIQ xAL V2.0 
> was used as the basis to define the address components for 
> UBL. Most of the examples are from xAL. I would would have 
> preferred UBL to incorporate all the components of xAL.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ram
> 
> Ram Kumar
> General Manager
> Software R&D and Architecture
> MSI BUSINESS SYSTEMS
> Suite 204A, 244 Beecroft Road
> Epping, NSW 2121, Australia
> Direct: +61-2-9815 0226
> Mobile: +61-412 758 025
> Fax: +61-2-98150200
> URL: www.msi.com.au 
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: colin.wallis@ssc.govt.nz [mailto:colin.wallis@ssc.govt.nz]
> > Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 2:50 PM
> > To: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: [ciq] UBL addresses
> > 
> > Hi all
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Has anyone had a chance to look through the UBL spec now 
> circulating?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > It's got some addressing elements there which might need 
> some thinking 
> > about in terms of UBL/CIQ harmonisation...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I have just skimmed the doc and I do not profess any in depth 
> > background on UBL
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Cheers
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Colin   
> > 
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from 
> the roster 
> > of the OASIS TC), go to 
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ciq/members/leave
> > _workgroup.php.
> > 
> > 
>