Re: [Geopriv] "House Number" misnamed?

["Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson at andrew.com>]

Misnamed as it may be, the actual label does not need to change if we want to extend its semantics.  The only problem comes about when you attempt to constrain semantics.  I see no problem with what you propose.

It's a simple enough change to note that HNO can refer to milestones or whatever.  The only question that arises is whether this is the right thing to do.  There was that proposal to add support for a separate "post number", which seemed to indicate that such things were commonplace, but orthogonal to house numbering.

I've always thought that all the suffix fields were largely redundant and just a source of extra complexity.  As it stands, any document author can choose to use the suffix, or just roll the two identifiers into the base element.  The Austrian mappings in the RFC-to-be use the latter approach consistently.

--Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces at ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Rosen, Brian
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 October 2009 3:00 AM
> To: geopriv at ietf.org
> Subject: [Geopriv] "House Number" misnamed?
> 
> In the original PIDF-LO definition in RFC4119, we have a field called
> "House
> Number" (and a "House Number Suffix").  Is this field misnamed?
> 
> Suppose you had a "milepost" on a road, or on a railroad, or even a
> hiking
> trail.  Would you expect the marker number (which is usually miles or
> kilometers as measured from an end of the road/railroad/trail) to
> appear in
> the "HNO" field?
> 
> I think yes, which means that the field is misnamed.  I would suspect
> that
> the appetite of the work group to actually change the name of the field
> would be low, although I would probably like to do something that would
> generalize the use of the field.
> 
> A more subtle question.  In 4119, under HNO, it says "numeric part
> only".
> If the post marker was "125.5" is that numeric enough, or would we have
> to
> use the suffix?
> 
> Brian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv