 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason for wanting a postal address would likely be
because the device user wants to have something mailed or delivered. If this is
true, then the goal of a "postal" request should be to get the location where
mail and packages should be sent, and not necessarily the actual location where
the device is. These locations may be the same or they may be different, as
Jerome and Guy described.
On the other hand, if we insist that postal formulations
must still describe the actual physical location and not necessarily a mailing
address, then I don't see what compelling use there is for such a
distinction.
If people want the mailing address, I can see the potential
use, but I don't care whether we do that or not. On the other hand, if people
want a postal-only formulation of a physical location, which may or may not be
useful for shipping packages and sending mail, then I don't get
it.
As a potential LIS implementer, I don't really see the need
for the complexity of having separate street names stored for various locations,
for the special cases where they differ. Which means, I wouldn't plan on it. Let
someone use a street-name mapping function. Besides, the location data we have
in our database has 9-digit zip in most cases. It's real easy to do a reverse
lookup to get the official postal street name, given a 9-digit zip code.
So let me ask -- is "postal" supposed to be the address
where people at the current location get mail? If it can't be used to send mail,
then where's the value in providing a LO with only the postal fields in
it?
Barbara From: Winterbottom, James [mailto:James.Winterbottom at andrew.com] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:39 PM To: Stark, Barbara; Marc Berryman; Mary Barnes; geopriv at ietf.org Subject: RE: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations - reprise 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