Identifying a primary number may also be an important consideration.
I am not advocating for any particular set of domain values (as you suggest there may be many types not included in either xCard:TelephoneNumberCategoryCodeSimpleType or ndex:TelephoneNumberCategoryCodeSimpleType). However, distinguishing
home, work, cell, etc. phones is so commonplace that it cannot be ignored.
The genesis of this concern is related to an attempt to do a case study in ECF5 to demonstrating the advantages of augmentations over extensions. This case study is based on a real life implementation in Arizona. When a petitioner files
for a protection order, information is provided to the court on a Plaintiff’s Information Sheet. This sheet includes:
Currently in ECF5 there is no way to distinguish the cell phone form any other type.
From: McMillan, Jim <jmcmillan@ncsc.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 7:51 AM
To: Graham, Gary <GGraham@courts.az.gov>; legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: Telephone Number Type
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
My comment is that other than the text phone for those with hearing impairment and text messaging (for reminders) the more important piece of information is which phone number is chosen by the user as their primary contact number? There
are too many types especially with virtual phones such as Google offers that makes the type discussion (other than text) irrelevant. IMHO.
Jim M
James E. McMillan – National Center for State Courts, USA
From:
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
On Behalf Of Graham, Gary
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:00 PM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Telephone Number Type
Please see the issue regarding telephone number type in the attached feedback document.