Lists Home |
Date Index |
Yes. I've seen it in at least one other organization as well. My point
is that it hasn't crossed schema boundaries and become universal in the
way people thought it might. (There might very well be a good reason for
this. For example, given the potential complexity of addresses, somebody
designing for a local market might be making a very good design decision
to ignore all that complexity and simply encode the address schema that
fits their locale.)
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Actually, some have. That is how GJXDM works.
> The SHARE net may drive out more uses for that
> approach. When we have federal dbs that have to
> be able to look into private dbs and return
> query values, common means to describe common
> elements such as names become very useful. My
> guess is most people are still building on point
> to point interfaces. The day of the service-discovery
> paradigm isn't quite here yet.
> From: Ronald Bourret [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> I think one thing that has not happened is that nobody has created and
> reused those dozens of modular schemas for things like addresses and
> names that we all imagined five years ago.