Mark,
The committee discussed this at length when
we were together in NO last May. The decision was made at that time to put that
type of routing information as a valuelistURN/valueList pair in the keyword
field.
Patti
From: Mark Carlson - Conneva, Inc.
[mailto:]
Sent: Sat 1/28/2006 4:17 PM
To:
Ellis, David; Aymond, Patti
Subject: Re: [emergency] FW: Suggestion:
Add incidentKeyword to contentObject
David,
I am not
able to post messages to the group so will just reply to you and Patti.
My proposal was to add an incidentKeyword with valueListURN/valueList
pair that would be used to classify the incident, not to use the
valueListURN/valueList pair to identify the incident. If it makes sense to
have incidentID and incidentDescription, then adding a way to classify the
incident also makes sense and adds value. I am working on a resourcing
application in which different business logic / routing rules will apply based
on incident type. Sure, I can design a contentObject payload that contains
incidentID, desription and keyword information, but as the ID and description
are already present in the DE, that is counter-intuitive. I'm not
convinced incident fields belong in the DE, but if they do, then a way to
categorize the incident seems necessary.
Regards,
Mark
Carlson
On 1/28/06, Ellis,
David <>
wrote:
As you can see, the
green IncidentID and incidentDescription have not functionality in either
explicit of Pub/Sub distribution. In fact, if we could predict incidents
in advance and add them to a valueListURN/value pair for determining
distribution during incidents, the TC should go to Las Vegas and win enough
money to
retire
IEM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PLEASE READ OUR NOTICE:
http://www.ieminc.com/e_mail_confidentiality_notice.html
