KMLM List

[Robert Walsh <rwalsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Sue.  I think structured is much easier to handle and provides a 
foundation for more flexible use.

Rob Walsh
EnvisionWare, Inc.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 8, 2011, at 9:26 AM, sboettcher@xxxxxxx wrote:

> My vote is for structured name and address fields.  This allows the client 
> application the flexibility to display or print the data in any format 
> without requiring parsing logic which would could be unique for each system 
> and possibly locale.
> 
> 
> <1F935534.gif>
> Sue Boettcher | Sr Product Development Specialist
> 3M Track & Trace EBO
> 3M Center, 209-1S-03 | St. Paul, MN, 55144-1000 
> Office: 651 733 8719 | Fax: 651 736 5409
> sboettcher@xxxxxxx | www.3M.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <graycol.gif>"Gray, Robert" ---01/07/2011 12:54:03 PM---From a Initiator 
> point of view - please let me know your preferences: 1. Structured or Unstruc
> 
> <ecblank.gif>
> From: <ecblank.gif>
> "Gray, Robert" <Robert.Gray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> <ecblank.gif>
> To:   <ecblank.gif>
> "ncipinfo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ncipinfo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> <ecblank.gif>
> Date: <ecblank.gif>
> 01/07/2011 12:54 PM
> <ecblank.gif>
> Subject:      <ecblank.gif>
> [ncipinfo] Structured vs. Unstructured Version 1 or Version 2...
> <ecblank.gif>
> Sent by:      <ecblank.gif>
> <ncipinfo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> From a Initiator point of view - please let me know your preferences:
> 1. Structured or Unstructured Name Fields.
> 2. Structured or Unstructured Address Fields (Home, Work, etc.)
> 
> You can either reply to the group or to me individually.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Rob Gray
> 
> Context: Polaris currently uses Structured Names and Structured Address 
> fields. The thought at the time was to not force the client application to 
> parse Unstructured fields and the client would have a consistent display from 
> responder to responder. 
>