From: "Adrian Crum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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?
<notroll>
Maybe this comes from an ambiguity in language (and maybe from French where the
same words are used).
For me contacting implies the possibility of a response, it opens a communication (with possibly no answers). This is the main
reason of existences for postal addresses, telephone numbers, emails, fax, IP addresses, etc. : to communicate.
Locate is unidirectional, you don't expect a car (or a machine at large) to
answer you.
This is why I tried to introduce this difference betwen contact and locate. I was also thinking about RFID and such rising
technologies.
But as I said you can use a postal address without expecting an answer, only to locate someone or something (delivery man, postman,
etc.).
You may use an IP address to locate a machine : whois. I also use the example of cell phones used by police when investigating, but
this one is disconcerting because it's a mix.
So I don't want to troll, and as I said before maybe this distinction is not
needed in OFBiz which is already enough complex...
</notroll>
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.
Yes, to locate them :o)
Jacques
-Adrian
