xPRL review comments from Joe Lubenow

[kumar.sydney@gmail.com]

Hi Joe,

Many thanks for your review comments on xPRL. Your point is very valid and I am fixing it in the document and in the schema to clarify this. I am renaming Primary and Secondary as something like Party 1 and Party 2 and clarifying that both the party and their relationship to each other could be equally important. 

Much appreciated. I have included your comment below.

I look forward to more comments from you and the TC members. Thanks all again.

Regards,

Ram
---------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Joe Lubenow <lubenow@msn.com>
Date: Feb 5, 2008 11:37 PM
Subject: RE: [ciq] CIQ V3.0 xPRL Working Draft 01 for your review
To: Ram Kumar <kumar.sydney@gmail.com>



Dear Ram Kumar,

I have reviewed the party relationships language model and have a few questions for you.

First of all, the work seems to build appropriately upon the other CIQ specifications and allows for integration with name and address files, etc.  It is an impressive achievement, in my opinion, typical of your work.

My question concerns the issue of asymmetry in the description of the relationships.

It appears that typically in xPRL one party is specified as primary and the other as secondary.  This appears to be so, even though some of the relationship types have differentiated roles that may not have an inherent hierarchy, and at least one type, "sibling", has undifferentiated roles.  

You are careful in the examples to have a wife as primary and a husband as secondary, so clearly this framework can avoid any traditionalism in role assignments that might cause concern.  

But imagine a business set up with equal partners.  Is it the case that either (a) the relationship would have to be designated in such a way that one is listed as primary, or (b) some redundancy would have to be introduced with each party described as primary in relation to the other?

I would be interested to know if the model supports pure "peer-to-peer" relationships with no party defined as primary, and if this is not the case, perhaps this is an area which could be improved to make the specification more generally applicable.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Joe Lubenow