W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > March 2009

Re: Civic Address for V2

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 22:23:47 +0000 (UTC)
To: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
Cc: Marc Linsner <mlinsner@cisco.com>, Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>, Alec Berntson <alecb@windows.microsoft.com>, "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0903032207290.8214@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Richard Barnes wrote:
>
> It's not really the number of fields that's important, right?  If you 
> don't care about the semantics of the fields, then you can just use one 
> fields where everything's smashed together.
> 
> The important thing about the discussion in the Japanese document is 
> that Japanese addresses require substantially different *semantics* than 
> western addresses.

How is the following mapping incorrect?




> you may as well just use a single field.

That might not be a bad idea, actually. What's the use case for having the 
information in multiple fields rather than just a multiline field?


> the whole utility of semantic tagging --

What is the utility in this case?


> If you need examples, there are more (from Austria) in this document:
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-civic-address-recommendations-02>

Address: 1234 Musterstadt, Hauptstrasse 1a - 5a Block 1b Haus 2c Stiege 1

 Andrei's proposal  
 country            
 region             
 county             
 city               Musterstadt
 premises           5a Block 1b Haus 2c Stiege 1
 street             Hauptstrasse
 street number      1a
 details            
 postalcode         1234


Address: 6173 Oberperfuss, Riedl 3097 (Pfarrkirche)

 Andrei's proposal  
 country            
 region             
 county             
 city               Oberperfuss
 premises           (Pfarrkirche)
 street             Riedl
 street number      3097
 details            
 postalcode         6173


Address: 
   Karlsplatz 1/2/9
   Wien  A-1010
   Austria


 Andrei's proposal  
 country            Austria
 region             
 county             
 city               Wien
 premises           
 street             Karlsplatz
 street number      1/2/9
 details            
 postalcode         A-1010


How are these mappings incorrect?


> There's an example in there that uses 11 different fields in a single 
> address (in its original format) and 8 in the PIDF-LO format.  The only 
> reason it uses fewer fields in PIDF-LO is that they defined an 
> unambiguous conversion to and from that format.  Which, as I've said, 
> could be an option here.

It's always possible to have a format that's even less ambiguous than the 
last, so we're always going to have a conversion step at some point, even 
if we reuse an address format. The question is, what is the simplest 
format that we can use that is still practical and addresses our use 
cases? Marc said nine fields wasn't enough; why not? Alex proposed a six 
field format that is already shipping internationally, but Perry said 
that it didn't work for his addresses. What exactly what the problem with 
it? Does the nine-field option work better?


Are there use cases that a one-field answer wouldn't solve?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2009 22:24:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 March 2012 18:13:42 GMT