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

[marion.royal@gsa.gov]

Yes,
I have a view.  I would like to use ONE standard for name and address (and
many, many other things).  If an industry standard for name and address
exists and it doesn't serve our purpose, then we should work with those who
are responsible for the standard and fix it.

How else would an organization achieve a "Universal" business language?

Marion A. Royal
202.208.4643 (Office)
202.302.4634 (Mobile)


                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                 
                    "Tim McGrath"          To:     Alan.Stitzer@marsh.com                                        
                    <tmcgrath@portco       cc:     ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org, (bcc: Marion A.                
                    mm.com.au>              Royal/MEB/CO/GSA/GOV)                                                
                                           Subject:     Re: [ubl-lcsc] Aligning 'address' with CIQ xAL           
                    10/26/2002 10:34                                                                             
                    PM                                                                                           
                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                 




whilst i beleive it is mappable, it is not unambiguously mappable.  For
example, it would rely on using the correct 'type' for Locality where it
represents  a City, Province or District.

In addition, there are several ways you could  transform a UBL 'Address'
to an xAL one.  However, this is not as problematic as it may appear.
 For example an xAL Address to a PO Box  can be structured several ways
in xAL as well!

Does anyone else have a view on this?

Alan.Stitzer@marsh.com wrote:

>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
>
>
>
>

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




----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>