Fair point.
We can either:
1)
recommend that location_assignment
is used and address_assignment is supported for interoperability
2)
recommend that only address_assignment
is used.
-----Original Message-----
From: David
Price [mailto:david.price@eurostep.com]
Sent: 24 June 2005 11:19
To: plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] address
assignment V location assignment
For compatibility with any other AP,
address_assignment will have to be used (too?). The Location entity
is not even in AP203 E2. Is interoperability with AP203,
etc. important to PLCS implementors?
-----Original
Message-----
From: Rob Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com]
Sent: 24 June 2005 09:39
To: plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [plcs-dex] address
assignment V location assignment
Hi
I am writing the capability
“assigning_organization” and have a few questions.
An address can be associated with an organization by
address_assignment (PDM schema approach) or by using location_assignment to
assign a location that has a representation that is a postal address.
I think that we should advocate one approach and given that
the location approach allows more that just an address, we should recommend
that approach.
Should this be documented in
“assigning_organization” or “representing_location”?
I was also wondering whether we needed a new cacapbility
representing_organization to describe relationship between organizations.
Or should that be in “assigning_organization” as
well?
Any views?
Regards
Rob
-------------------------------------------
Rob Bodington
Eurostep Limited
Web Page: http://www.eurostep.com http://www.share-a-space.com
Email:
Rob.Bodington@eurostep.com
Phone: +44 (0)1454 270030
Mobile: +44 (0)7796 176 401