From: "Adrian Crum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
David Jones wrote:
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.
I wasn't implying that you're an idiot. I'm sorry you took it that way. I tried to phrase my reply to indicate I was confused by
your reply and I was trying to make sense of it.
Thank you for the explanation, I understand what you were trying to say now.
It's an interesting conundrum. A person or facility could be contacted via a terrestrial position, but at the same time it is not
necessarily a contact mechanism.
Sorry to insist Adrian, a person or facility could be *located* via a terrestrial position, but not *contacted*. How will you
contact (try to establish a relation) them with the help of only a geo point (ie lat/long or such) ?
Jacques
-Adrian
