 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Barbara, I am a little confused by this response. Expressing the civic location types in the
PIDF-LO is one issue. Being able to request just a
jurisdictional civic, or just a postal civic using HELD is a different issue. I don’t think issue one is really
resolved, but I also don’t think that it has any direct bearing on issues
2. Your last sentence makes me think that you
see some benefit in leaving jurisdictionalCivic and postalCivic in HELD. Is that
right? Cheers James From:
Stark, Barbara [mailto:bs7652 at att.com] The impression I was left
with, was that it was possible to describe a particular physical civic location
with a single PIDF-LO. Within that LO there may be jurisdictional and postal
fields. These are already defined in the PIDF-LO docs. The street address (and
possibly the jurisdictional community name) may have several (not just 2)
"correct" ways to express it, but it should be possible to translate
from one to another, so only one needs to be kept in the LIS. What appeared to be touched
on, but never really discussed, was whether there needed to be the ability to
say "I would like to have the mailing address for where I am."
As Guy and Jerome mentioned, the location of the mailbox does not necessarily
coincide with the physical location of the device making the request. So, I don't see value in
separate jurisdictional and postal requests to describe a single physical
location, because both should be expressible within a single PIDF-LO. There MAY
be value in being able to request the mailing address for a physical location. Barbara From:
Marc Berryman [mailto:MBerryman at 911.org] 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 From:
Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.barnes at nortel.com] 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 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,
***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA621 |
_______________________________________________ Geopriv mailing list Geopriv at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv