On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 07:44:08 -0700, Adrian Crum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David E Jones wrote: >> >> On Aug 7, 2008, at 3:57 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> >>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>> Yes actually, I was just thinking about the EntityNameContactMech >>>> pattern, not a rule indeed. >>>> And because I wondered why we'd use this pattern in most other cases >>>> and not for GPS Geolocation, I just reviewed how Len Silverston >>>> suggests to deal with contact informations. >>>> At this stage I must admit that things were not much more clear. As >>>> far as I read Len speaks only about PartyContactMech and >>>> FacilityContactMech, but it's easy to extrapolate more usages as it's >>>> done in OFBiz. >>>> Now, please let me think loud. What is the difference between a >>>> postal address and a GPS point ? Is there more differences between >>>> them than between, say a telecom number and a postal address ? >>>> Obviously telecom numbers and a postal addresses have something in >>>> common that a GPS point does not share: they are mechanismes to >>>> contact somebody (or something at large). A GPS point is only a mean >>>> to locate somebody (or something at large), you can't contact a >>>> GPS point. So yes, it makes sense to differntiate a GPS point from >>>> other contact mech. A GPS point is not a contact mech as Len >>>> Silverstion defines one. It's a mean to locate not to contact. So now >>>> I better understant why you wanted things to point to it >>>> rather than having it point to other things. I still wonder though if >>>> we should not think a bit more about it. Putting a >>>> terrestrialPositionId in ContactMech does not make sense, as it's >>>> not a mean to contact but locate. Should we not introduce >>>> something else. Like a LocateMech, which could be maybe used for >>>> other stuff in future ? >>> >>> I like the idea of making terrestrial position another contact mech > type. >>> >>> I disagree that you can't contact a GPS point. You can if you have a >>> GPS device and a means of transportation - the same as a postal >>> address. How is locating someone via car plus GPS device any different >>> than locating someone via car plus a map? >>> >>> I can think of other uses for a terrestrial position contact mech type >>> - locating facilities or fixed assets like electrical transmission >>> towers, cell towers, etc. They aren't going to have a postal address >>> or phone number. If terrestrial position was another contact mech >>> type, then we could use existing services, etc to associate that >>> location to the facility. >> >> A PostalAddress is not a contact mechanism because it represents a >> location that you can go to, and in fact many postal addresses are not >> places you can go to or if you go there you'll find a box or a bunch of >> boxes and no people. >> >> The term "Postal" is a clue: it is meant for contact via letter or >> package or whatever. > > Huh? Maybe I'm missing something. In The Data Model Resource Book > chapter 2, it shows a diagram (mine is figure 2.10) that shows Postal > Address, Telecommunications Number, and Electronic Address all contained > within a contact mechanism "box." The "box" is described by Contact > Mechanism Type. How is Postal Address not a contact mechanism?
Where did I say that it is not a contact mech? It certainly it. I just said it is a contact mech because you can send something there, NOT because it represents a location. Would it make sense for me to say that it is not a ContactMech? Come on, gimme a chance and at least re-read what I wrote if it doesn't make sense. If I was that much of an idiot OFBiz wouldn't exist. > What I was trying to express was that a Terrestrial Position entity > could be added to the other entities in that box and it could be > described as another contact mechanism type. And that is what I was commenting on as not making sense, because that is not what being a ContactMech means. -David
