RE: [ciq] RE: new design paradigm for discussion

["Max Voskob" <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>]

Hi Colin,

I'll add geospatial a bit later.
What I have in mind is to specify a few elements/attributes from the latest
GML that should be used for that purpose.
Well, unless someone else comes up with another idea.

Cheers,
Max

-----Original Message-----
From: colin.wallis@ssc.govt.nz [mailto:colin.wallis@ssc.govt.nz] 
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2005 2:31 p.m.
To: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ciq] RE: new design paradigm for discussion

Hi all

Ram, Max...many thanks for the effort that has certainly gone in here.  I
think it's one of the hardest things to do - to know one thing so well, and
go back to the drawing board and redesign it from a zero base.

I have circulated it internally here, but a considered response is not
likely before next week.

My personal observations are:

1)  Noting that geospatial is gone, although I guess you can create a
namespace for it. We would need a reference to geospatial given the long
running strategy of trying to harmonise address types for the nation....one
day..:-)

2)  I am still trying to work out if most organisations' data matching and
interoperability needs are better served by this version or not.  It seems
more straight forward, tighter (in one context) which is good and I like the
treatment of the identifier and the data quality elements.  Also the use of
connectors (Mr AND Mrs) may possibly make our data matching harder.  But
then again it might make it easier.  

I will revert when we have had a better look at it.

Thanks again

Cheers
Colin