Re: [ubl-lcsc] [roe] OAG comment: DeliveryPoint

[Alan.Stitzer@marsh.com]

Location and Sublocation should be sufficient for each of these.  I do not
think we need additional structures to define DeliveryPoints -- they are
locations with either a structured or unstructured address.


____________________
Alan Stitzer
AVP
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 03 July, 2003, 10:55:47
PM Thursday >>>


tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au@Internet on 3 Jul 2003, 22:55 Thursday

To:    ubl-LCSC
cc:      (bcc: Alan Stitzer)
Subject:    [ubl-lcsc] [roe] OAG comment: DeliveryPoint


To facilitate debate and consensus on the reviewed items, I am posting
relevant issues as discussion points.  The intention is that after a one
week period the team shall resolve these issues.  For example, this
issue will be resolved at the call on Friday July 11th.

Item 8.

The concern was with how to express a physical location for which
address is not sufficient, for exmpale a dock at a wharf or warehouse.
 The OAG solution was to implement a generic DeliveryPoint data element
within Address and allow it to be qualified with a type attribute.

Is this a legitimate solution?  Should we also then have PickupPoint?
 Do we acccept qualification by attributes?  We currently use the
RelevantLocation as a text BIE within DeliveryTerms as the nearest
equivalent.

--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160



You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-lcsc/members/leave_workgroup.php



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