- 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>
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 UTC