RE: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations - reprise

["Marc Berryman" <MBerryman at 911.org>]

Title: "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations - reprise

Mary,

 I do not think that Jurisdiction and Postal need to be the same, often they are not the same, since postal rarely follows the same “boundaries” as jurisdictional. Since they may, or may not, be the same is the reason they are both included. You can not assume they are the same.

 

Marc B

 

Marc Berryman, ENP
Geographic Information Systems
Greater Harris County 9-1-1 Emergency Network
Houston, Texas      (713) 407-2254
mberryman at 911.org

---

From: Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.barnes at nortel.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 11:02 AM
To: geopriv at ietf.org
Subject: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations - reprise

 

Hi all,

This thread never seemed to conclude with clear consensus as to whether folks see a need for both these specific location types rather than being able to use a common "civic" locationType.     I went back through the threads and the majority of the responses indicated that both of the values should be the same (with Canada being the exception?).   Since the thread did diverge somewhat (into how conversions etc. are done), I would like to do a quick query to see if folks are okay with removing those two values from the locationType in the HELD draft?  

And, just to be precise, we're proposing changing locationType from a set of {any, civic, geodetic, postalCivic, jurisdictionalCivic, locationURI} to a set of

{any, civic, geodetic, locationURI}. 

Regards,
Mary
Editor HELD

 

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv