To work through issues, and reporting things, any thoughts on being able to associated "contacts" (almost like e-mail / apple contacts)... where you can enter information about contacts and "associate" with site with some type of ref?... then we could query and display all contacts associated with a site.

My issue immediatly is that I have a...

Example:

Site1 = "Store1"

Contact.name = "main" Contact.phone = "x-xxx-xxx-xxxx" Contact.email = "[email protected]" and so on...

Contact.name "Dan" Contact.phone = "x-xxx..

and so on..

Going further... say if you create a work order / task tracking system for issues / sparks / alarms integrated... you could associate a assigned task with a "contact", or even assign dogging down a persistent spark / alarm issue or task to a contact.

I'd rather not have this ignored and most of us come up with our own tagging structure for this kind of thing.

Dan

In our domain, I'm thinking that "user" might be a better term than "contact" - but really what we are talking about is modeling data about a person.

We use the following tags in SkySpark for users that I can propose:

• user: marker tag
• username: programmatic name of account used for login
• dis: user's display name, typically "$firstName $lastName"
• firstName: given or personal name
• lastName: family or surname name
• email: email address

We don't do anything for phone numbers. There are two options. Easy option is just just phone. More complicated option is to actually model phoneHome, phoneWork, phoneMobile.

I think phoneHome, phoneWork, and phoneMobile are the best ways.

Think email is fine to just have one email address.

Also, need a phoneExtension too.

Brian... Only problem with calling it a user, is that you might want to have a list of users that aren't in the user dataBase. IE... They don't have a user name and password?

Maybe if we add a marker called contact, that would just mean that the user is a normal contact, and not a user of the product.

We might want to define contact types too.

student teacher user(would be a person who is actually using the software) staff

I don't think we need every possible user, but we should come up with a list of them

What would phoneExtension be? I think all the phoneXXX tags are just strings and we allow free formatting to add extension.

I agree that all of these tags would apply equally to any entity that modeled a person. So I don't think that user would be required, but if we are modeling users, we might as well standardize it. Maybe we say that people can be modeled as either or both user and contact

Advantage to having the extension be a separate tag value would be for mobile phones, and IP phones. It's not the end of the world for us to just have to parse those.

How associated a user with sites and equip?

How associated a user with sites and equip?

My thinking is that we might not need to standardize that, better left as vendor security implementation.

Although the way we do this for SkySpark is to associate a tag filter called siteAccessFilter on each user that defines which sites a user has access to.