[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency-msg] RM elements - Ross/Jon Skeels
I agree with Renato, but I think we need more than two roles:
For example, the distributor may send the procurer contact info for the producer, distributor, dispatcher, and shipper, and the procurer may send the distributor contact info for the procurer, acquirer, receiver, and consumer.
From: Renato Iannella [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Sun 8/27/2006 11:57 PM
To: Aymond, Patti; Tim Grapes
Subject: Re: [emergency-msg] RM elements - Ross/Jon Skeels
On 26 Aug 2006, at 02:24, Aymond, Patti wrote:
We should define two roles within the RM structures.
1 - Resource Consumers - those that request and need resources
2 - Resource Distributors - those that have resources, or have access to them, or manage them for others, and can provide/dispatch resources (to Resource Consumers)
My assumption has been that the ContactInformation is always the sender of the resource message, and hence in some cases
it is the RC and others the RD - those distinction simply depends on the message type.
So the question is: Do we need more roles than these two?
For example, do we need a "Resource Owner" who maybe different than the RD - for example: Owning/HomeDispatch/HomeUnit
If yes, then we need some Ref Model changes.
If no, then we don't need this info - we assume that the RD is responsible for all aspects of the Resource management.
(In this case, if the HomeDispatch is "Collins Dispatch Center" then this would only appear in one of the arrival/departure Locations elements, as this is the important bit of information...)
I think the important design-philosophy is that we are not trying to replicate an entire back-end resource management/logistics system, but the interoperability between resource consumer/distributor.
IEM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PLEASE READ OUR NOTICE: