Re: [ubl-lcsc] [roe] OAG comment: House and Building

["Lisa-Aeon" <lseaburg@aeon-llc.com>]

I agree with OAG and think that one set of structures is less confusing.  I
vote for changing it to the BuildingName and BuildingNumber.

The only reason I can think of that we had two different ones would be for
distinquishing between a person's house and a company's house, but I don't
think its a valid reason to have this ambiguity.  My two cents.

Lisa



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim McGrath" <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>
To: <ubl-LCSC@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:12 PM
Subject: [ubl-lcsc] [roe] OAG comment: House and Building


> 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 1.
>
> The OAG reviewers have identified that the UBL use of Building and House
> in the Address structure is ambiguous and they are in fact, synonyms.
>
> Can anyone see why we should not have BuildingName and BuildingNumber?
>  This also brings us closer to the CIQ vocabulary.
>
> -- 
> 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
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 6/25/2003