RE: Registry concern with specifying common vertical structures

[Scott Hinkelman <srh@us.ibm.com>]

ISO?, CIQ?, HR-XML?, *?
I still question if PostalAddress should be in scope for formal
specification of the ebXML Registry at all.

Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>@compuserve.com> on 03/14/2001
09:28:56 PM

To:   ebxml repository <ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org>, Ram Kumar
      <rkumar@msi.com.au>, Mary Kay Blantz <mblantz@netfish.com>
cc:
Subject:  RE: Registry concern with specifying common vertical structures



Reply from Ram - looks more promising than
first thought.

This - and W.Kammerer on ISO seem possibles.

Mary-Kay - comments?

DW.

-------------Forwarded Message-----------------

From:     "Ram Kumar", INTERNET:rkumar@msi.com.au
To:  , INTERNET:ciq@lists.oasis-open.org
     , INTERNET:ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org
     "'Karl Best'", INTERNET:karl.best@oasis-open.org
     "'David RR Webber'", Gnosis_

Date:     3/14/2001  9:29 PM

RE:  RE: Registry concern with specifying common vertical structures


David

You are right that the work we are doing on name and address
standards is fairly heavy stuff. But the beauty is that it covers
any application that want to use simple representation of the name
and address to very detailed representation of name and address
elements. For example, if you have a postal address say,

23 Archer Avenue East
Boulder, Colorado 12345-8976

Following are some of the ways that you can represent the above address
using the XML standard we are working on:

<address>23 Archer Avenue East
                Boulder, Colorado 12345-8976
</address>

OR

<address>
  <addressline1>23 Archer Avenue East</addressline1>
  <addressline2>Boulder, Colorado 12345-8976</addressline2>
</address>

OR

<address>
  <streetnumber>23</streetnumber> <streetname>Archer</streetname>
<streettype>Avenue</streettype>
<streetpostdirection>East</streetpostdirection>
<cityname>Boulder</cityname> <statename>Colorado</statetame>
<postcode>12345</postcode> <extendedpostcode>8976</extendedpostcode>
</address>

OR

<address>
<street>23 Archer Avenue East</street>
<city>Boulder</city><state>Colorado<./state>
<postcode>12345-8976</postcode>
</address>

This is the level of flexibility that we provide in our standard. Moreover,
please note
that our standard work can handle atleast more than 40-50 country address
structures.
The point I am trying to make is that it is not compulsary to define all
the
postal elements
to represent an address as you state. Most of the elements are optional.

Regards

Ram
Chair, CIQ TC
OASIS

> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David RR Webber [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:29 AM
> > > To: Karl Best
> > > Cc: ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org; ciq@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: RE: Registry concern with specifying common vertical
> > > structures
> > >
> > >
> > > Message text written by Karl Best
> > > >
> > > RegRep'ers:
> > >
> > > There is an OASIS technical committee (Customer Information
> > > Quality, CIQ)
> > > working on this stuff; their work is fairly far along. Is
> > > there a way to
> > > coordinate efforts?
> > >
> > > </karl><
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >
> > > Karl,
> > >
> > > I'm not sure that's the right answer - but it is an answer.
> > >
> > > Being on that TC and looking at the solution they are
> > > moving too - its awfully top heavy just for a registry
> > > entry owner details entry!!!
> > >
> > > Bit likely signing up for a new telephone line and having
> > > to state your mothers brothers uncles dad's date of birth.
> > >
> > > A sub-set of their approach may work , where the DTD
> > > has been skilfully restructured to make a simple highly
> > > level 90:10 possible - with options for greater
> > > granularity for the extended cases.
> > >
> > > This is another one of those - with 36hrs in a day we
> > > can get to it things....
> > >
> > > DW.
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ciq-request@lists.oasis-open.org
> > >
> >
>





----------------------- Internet Header --------------------------------
Sender: rkumar@msi.com.au
Received: from mailin5.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.78])
     by spdmgaac.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.9) with ESMTP id
VAA19921
     for <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:28:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ram-kumar-pc ([139.134.4.54]) by
          mailin5.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP
          id GA7WEQ00.26A; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:32:50 +1000
Received: from DC-29-207.bpb.bigpond.com ([203.40.29.207]) by
mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Lavish-MailRouter V2.9c 11/5205653); 15 Mar 2001
12:27:54
From: "Ram Kumar" <rkumar@msi.com.au>
To: "'David RR Webber'" <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>,
        "'Karl Best'" <karl.best@oasis-open.org>,
        <ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org>, <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: Registry concern with specifying common vertical structures
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:11:54 +1100
Message-ID: <006101c0acf8$b5e49fe0$b81a28cb@ram-kumar-pc.intranet>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
     charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To:
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3


------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-regrep-request@lists.ebxml.org