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

Re: Civic Address for V2

From: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 07:51:04 -0700
Cc: Alec Berntson <alecb@windows.microsoft.com>, Marc Linsner <mlinsner@cisco.com>, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3C6A0D10-AE1F-406D-90FD-C6110BCA3D4F@gmail.com>
To: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>

Does someone have a proposal IDL of the full civic address with "human  
readable names?"  (instead of A2, "county").  I saw Andrei's reduced  
form proposal, but didn't see anything that was a complete civic  
address.

Doug

On Mar 10, 2009, at 7:20 AM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> Most cases won't need all the fields, but having them will allow  
> more applications and avoid the hackery and guestimes I talked  
> about. Just as an example, having a separate building name field is  
> quite useful on campus for friend-finder applications ("who is in  
> the same building?"). In some other cases, we may only have limited  
> precision (e.g., county-level for IP-address-to-location services).  
> I admit that I find it hard to believe that somebody doesn't  
> understand "building name", "floor", "street suffix" or some of the  
> other fields proposed. The more obscure fields, such as the street  
> branch system, will only apply regionally, so developers that don't  
> care about Indonesia can ignore them, but they do make the system  
> capable of handling more than just US and European addresses.
>
> Henning
>
> On Mar 9, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Doug Turner wrote:
>
>> Hello Henning,
>>
>> I do not think we have any use cases that require comparing  
>> addresses for equality.  We clearly did not for the v1 addressing  
>> (coords).  I tend to think that civic addressing comparison is out  
>> of scope.  For example, if two UAs pass back an address for the  
>> same place, I do not think that we should make any guarantees that  
>> the data the UA pass back to the requesting site is the same.  In  
>> fact, I do not think that the addresses need to be the same between  
>> different runs of the same UA.  The reason for this is that UAs  
>> might use different back-ends for determining the actual location  
>> of the UA.  Maybe the first geolocation request uses WiFi- 
>> >location, and the second request uses a user defined position, or  
>> what have you.
>>
>> Secondly, we are not designing this API for someone like your or me  
>> or anyone on this mailing list that can understand thirty+ fields,  
>> have no problem looking up extensive documentation, and enjoy  
>> digging through mailing list for rationale on the way things are  
>> they way they are..  Rather, the API must be designed for the web  
>> at large.  I think we should design the simple-to-use over a can-do- 
>> everything-everyone-every-wanted address for v2.
>>
>> Keep in mind, that one could always create a civic address spec  
>> that leverages the geolocation specification and implementations.   
>> For example, you could add a separate civicAddress to the position  
>> object in a future specification.
>>
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 14:51:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:33:52 UTC