Hi everyone,
A Thursday call works for me.
Thanks,
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:43 AM
To:
Subject: [emergency-msg] Meeting Next Week?
Hi Folks,
We should have a meeting next week to get back in synch after the
holidays. The TC , the IF SC and the Adoption SC are all meeting next
Tuesday morning, so it would be crowded to squeeze our meeting into
that set of timeslots, plus we need to include Karen and Renato, if
he can manage it.
So I suggest scheduling our next meeting for
Thursday Jan 11 at 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. EST.
If that doesn't work for you, please pipe up here and we can discuss it.
If we don't hear from anyone with conflicts for this, I would
appreciate it if Tim could schedule it for us.
Also, I would appreciate it if anyone has a recollection of any other
message elements where the ContactInformation package needs to be
added other than the top level Resource Message unit for each message
type and in the ResponsibleParty in OwnershipInformation.
In the top level I used the form Contact:ContactInformation but I am
wondering if it should just be ContactInformation: char since we
don't have a message element: Contact?
I hesitated to call it ContactRole, (the previous name for the
relationship between the top level unit and the Contact Information
cluste).
I did that to avoid repeating an element from further downstream in
the element chain.
We may need a new label for the person sending the message, or
responsible for sending the message (like MessageContact or
MessageContactRole) to avoid having a term that is used in its own
definition which would have if we used either
ContactInformation:ContactInformation or
ContactRole:ContactInformation (in which Contact Role is a defining
characteristic with a specific list of types).
I have attached my update of the main Element Reference Model so you
can see what I have done. I didn't want to update all of the rest of
the models until I am sure that this much is correctly aligned.
I would also appreciate any discussion about whether we should
consider adding the ContactInformation package to the
ResponseInformation unit. My question is to those with more practical
on-the-ground experience than I have as to whether or not a person
other that the person sending a response type message would be the
contact for that information. I certainly don't want to add wrinkles
where we could get out of synch between the data dictionary, schema
and models on the basis of my own speculation.
Cheers,
Rex
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 1/2/2007
2:58 PM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 1/2/2007
2:58 PM
