RE: Does anyone need a separate set of tags for "jurisdictional" vs "postal locations"? was RE: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt

From: Dawson, Martin ^lt;Martin.Dawson@andrew.com>
Date: Thu Jul 26 2007 - 11:41:07 EDT

Yes, it makes sense to me Rohan. I agree, it would be good to be able to look at a PIDF-LO and *know* whether it's a jurisdictional or a common civic representation. I do think, also however, that it would be useful to have explicit semantics in the LCP to be able to ask for one or the other if there really is a distinction in types. Cheers, Martin -----Original Message----- From: Rohan Mahy [mailto:rohan.mahy@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 27 July 2007 1:39 AM To: Brian Rosen Cc: Dawson, Martin; Marc Linsner; Geopriv Subject: Re: Does anyone need a separate set of tags for "jurisdictional" vs "postal locations"? was RE: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt Hi, I should mention that the semantics I was thinking of is that each civic could be tagged with all the types/attributes that correspond to that civic address. So I could say that one address is jurisdictional and a valid postal address, while another is a valid postal address (possibly an alias) and also the common use address. Hope that makes sense. -rohan On 7/26/07, Rohan Mahy <rohan.mahy@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Brian, > > I've come up with a few examples now where jurisdictional, emergency, > postal, and/or common use addresses have different road names and/or > "house numbers". I think we really need a way to distinguish these > when they are different. > > As we've discussed in the past (and agreed I think), I think that this > is a PIDF-LO civic location problem, not a problem with the LCP or > dereference protocols. > > I have provided three examples from two places in the US with which I > am familiar. > > thanks, > -rohan > > Example 1: Address on a corner. > Common use postal address: > 324 Darwin Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA > > Jurisdictional address: > 1500 Broadway, Santa Cruz County, Santa Cruz, CA USA > > Example 2: Rural communities with no village name recognized by the > postal service. > Jurisdictional address: > 18780 Butternut Ridge Road, Lorain County, Russia Township, Sheldon, OH USA > > Canonical Postal Address > 18780 Butternut Ridge Road, Oberlin, OH 44074 > > > Example 3: Alias streets with different numbering > 74395 State Highway 58, Oberlin, OH > 245 Main Street, Oberlin, OH > > > > On 7/24/07, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> wrote: > > I'd like to finish up this thread with a plea for the working group members > > to look into their own national situation and determine if this is a problem > > or not. > > > > If the VALUES for the tags in the PIDF (for example, the "A" tags) can be > > different for a postal address than for a jurisdictional address, would you > > please report that information to the work group? > > > > If you have no problem in your country, then no action is necessary. If you > > have a problem, please describe it. > > > > I think we will find that there is no problem. If we get no reports, I ask > > that the next version of the HELD document drop this feature. Note that we > > retain both the jurisdictional community name and the post office name. > > That differentiation is needed in many countries, but the PIDF you get from > > HELD would have both. > > > > Brian > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Dawson, Martin [mailto:Martin.Dawson@andrew.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:12 PM > > > To: Marc Linsner > > > Cc: Geopriv > > > Subject: RE: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt > > > > > > Yes, probably. So the question is whether there is a need for the > > > distinction within the HELD request (though as Richard points out, the > > > fundamental question goes further afield). > > > > > > If the recipient (beholder) may not get everything they need from a > > > given form, then there's a need to ensure that the correct form can be > > > sourced by the provider of the LO (HELD request scenario). But, also, > > > given two LO's to choose from (not the HELD request scenario) and a > > > provider knows they need to choose one or other form, how can they tell > > > which is which? The latter is where I can see it would need to be part > > > of the PIDF-LO information. > > > > > > Anyway - it would be good to hear from some different jurisdictions just > > > how real the issue is. Obviously it's not going to be good for emergency > > > services (or value-added services depending on which civic-bias the LIS > > > adopts) if there's no way to provide a distinguished request/response. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Martin > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2007 5:57 AM > > > To: Dawson, Martin > > > Cc: 'Geopriv' > > > Subject: RE: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt > > > > > > Martin, > > > > > > > > > > > So - as Marc L kicked off - is there actually a requirement > > > > for this distinction? > > > > > > > > > > More precise: Is there a reason to make the distinction within the HELD > > > location request? > > > > > > The mechanism chosen to support what is termed 'postal' and > > > 'jurisdictional' > > > location types is to utilize the same LO type and add the appropriate > > > fields. If in fact there are some 'overlapping' fields, the same tag > > > used > > > for different purposes depending on the location type, then utilizing > > > the > > > same type for both purposes was probably not a wise choice (should be > > > remedied). If there are no 'overlapping' fields, then the beholder can > > > simply utilize the respective fields that match the use case. > > > > > > -Marc- > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- > > > ---------------------- > > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may > > > contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. > > > If you have received it in error, please notify the sender > > > immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of > > > this email is prohibited. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- > > > ---------------------- > > > [mf2] > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Geopriv mailing list > > > Geopriv@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Geopriv mailing list > > Geopriv@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of this email is prohibited. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [mf2]

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:41:07 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 26 2007 - 11:41:20 EDT