ah, well I am working a plan to remove toname and attnname.
if you read the data books it was not laid out that way.
my concept was
contactMechtoPostalAddressAssoce
postal addresss -------------->postaladdressid
ContactMechID <------------contact Mech
the toname and attentent name would become part of the contact mech
types with those types using the same relationship.
so one postal address is in the database.
Just like in the real world that is just one address, or location.
Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 8/9/2008 12:56 AM:
> To answer you question you have only to have a look at the PostalAddress
> definition
> There are specific fields there like toName and attnName which can't
> shared. A PostalAddress is only an administrative mean to contact, not
> to locate
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "BJ Freeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> so when someone else puts in the same address will they point to the
>> same address or will a new record be added?
>>
>> Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 8/8/2008 2:33 PM:
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jacques Le Roux"
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: <dev@ofbiz.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:24 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Latitude, Longitude in PostalAdress
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: "BJ Freeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> My last proposition should cover your previous demand. If you expire
>>>> an address then the geo-point this address used (point to) would still
>>>> exist but as the address is obsolete we don't have to care (this
>>>> address and its associations should not be used anymore)
>>>> Let see your new questions now:
>>>> 1) Not sure to understand this one since an address is a type of
>>>> ContachMech. Did you not used a word for another ?
>>>> 2) PostalAddress.ContactMechId -> ContacMech ->
>>>> ContacMech.TerrestialPositionId -> TerrestialPosition
>>>
>>> Sorry should have been PostalAddress.contactMechId -> ContacMech ->
>>> ContacMech.terrestialPositionId -> TerrestialPosition
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
