In the location summary query response message (PRLO_IN202011CA)we have found that the data supplied in the serviceDeliveryLocation element, that is used by the MR2009 message, does not map very well to the same element used within other messages. The other messages within the standard have a telecom element at the top level of the serviceDeliveryLocation element that provides valuable contact information to the user. This information appears to be missing from the location summary query.

Within the location detail query response(PRLO_IN202013CA), the only telecom information in the message is held down within the “contactParty” element. The “contactParty” element within the location detail response is meant to provide a phone directory for the location. Even though it is a useful concept, it does not truly meet the same concept as being provided in all other serviceDeliveryLocation elements as a 0..5 telecom element that provides a list of telecom data for contacting the location.

In addition to the above, we also feel that the location summary query response message (PRLO_IN202011CA) should be returning minimal contact information about locations and that this should include the telecom element as it is likely the primary data that would be used to contact a given location. It is not really clear how data sourced from a location registry would directly map into the other messages within MR2009 as the telecom element is missing.

We would like to know if people feel that the lack of the telecom element under the serviceDeliveryLocation element in the location summary and detail messages was just a mistake in the standard or was it specifically left out for a valid business reason. Would it be acceptable to add it in (would Infoway consider adding it into the message)?

Thanks.