contact mech may not always be the same address and geopoint for an address it will always have the same geopoint 1) how do you connect an address that already exists with a New ConactMech. 2) how do you connect the assoicated Geopoint that goes with that address.
Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 8/8/2008 1:00 PM: > Yes , this is a good point to note. Actually the geo point continues to > exist (it may be used by another thing) but the relation between it and > the address does not. > > Jacques > > From: "BJ Freeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> but some means would need to link the terrestrial position to the >> address so if the address part is disabled, through the enddate, in the >> contact mech, so is the position associated with it. >> >> I agree on the rest. >> >> Adrian Crum sent the following on 8/7/2008 2:57 PM: >>> 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. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> >>> >> > > > >
