Subject: Re: Registry concern with specifying common vertical structures
Farrukh,
And as I mentioned in the meeting, I agree it is needed of course, but I
believe it to be best to allow the utilzation community of an ebXML
Registry define that structure. ebXML Registry is not UDDI, and most likely
there will be many ebXML Registries for specific communities, unlike UDDI,
and those communities are best served by letting *them* define that
structure.
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
Farrukh Najmi <najmi@east.sun.com> on 03/15/2001 09:52:06 AM
To: Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc: David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>, ebxml repository
<ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org>, Ram Kumar <rkumar@msi.com.au>, Mary
Kay Blantz <mblantz@netfish.com>, ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Re: Registry concern with specifying common vertical structures
Scott,
As I mentioned in the meeting yesterday it is common for registry specs to
define PostalAddress (UDDI defines Address as a type, OASIS defines the
attributes of address but not the type, ISO 11179n defines type). I think
we
need the type in the model. The attributes could be tweaked.
Just my 2cents.
Scott Hinkelman wrote:
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-regrep-request@lists.ebxml.org
--
Regards,
Farrukh
Powered by
eList eXpress LLC