Re: [ubl-lcsc] Aligning 'address' with CIQ xAL

[Alan.Stitzer@marsh.com]

Tim,

I am partial to the way we have it now.  I think that as long as xAL is
mappable to what we have things should be ok...



____________________
Alan Stitzer
Technical Analyst
Marsh USA Inc.
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-2774
Phone: (561) 743-1938
Fax: (561) 743-1993
Internet: Alan.Stitzer@marsh.com
____________________


<<< Memo from tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au@Internet on 22 October, 2002,
12:34:44 PM Tuesday >>>


tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au@Internet on 22 Oct 2002, 12:34 Tuesday

To:    ubl-lcsc
cc:      (bcc: Alan Stitzer)
Subject:    [ubl-lcsc] Aligning 'address' with CIQ xAL


The attached spreadsheet shows the current way we model addresses and
contrasts this with the way the OASIS CIQ xAL vocabulary would express
the same components.

The question to the group is do we wish to introduce the necessary
structures to align ourselves more tighly to xAL or remain with our
legacy view fro xCBL?

--
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142


(See attached file: normalized components address using xAL.xls)


To:    ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org@Internet
cc:     (bcc: CN=Alan Stitzer/OU=NYC-NY/OU=US/OU=Marsh/O=MMC)
From:  tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au@Internet

Attachment: normalized components address using xAL.xls
Description: application/msexcel