Re: Comments on WD-vocab-org-20121023

Thanks Phil - sorry I hadn't noticed that change in the range of siteAddress.  I think that is a positive step to allow 'horses for courses'.  

I don't know the details of the INSPIRE approach, so I can't comment on whether that would be a better fit for my circumstances.

Standardisation of addresses is of course a long running and tricky subject, but my objection to VCard is because it is essentially describing the wrong thing for my purposes in most cases. i.e it is a description of a kind of virtual business card, that introduces an unhelpful additional level of 'indirection'.   

I want to say "the address of this building is 15 Acacia Avenue", not "the address of this building is an imaginary card and on that card is written that the address is 15 Acacia Avenue").  The breakdown of address into street address, locality etc in VCard is fine.  So perhaps if the range of siteAddress were vcard:Address it would make better sense (to me anyway).



On 5 Apr 2013, at 10:29, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:

> Thanks Bill,
> 
> On the address issue - the range of siteAddress has been removed so that use of VCard is no longer mandatory. See [1]. An important driver for this is interop with INSPIRE where house numbers/names and units within them, e.g. Flat 3, 15 Acacia Avenue, would be recorded in three fields [Flat 3] [15] [Acacia Avenue] which is at least one more field than VCard would use.
> 
> Phil.
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_LC_comments#Align_treatment_of_registered_addresses_with_RegOrg_.5BDone.5D
> 
> On 05/04/2013 09:59, Bill Roberts wrote:
>> I don't have any significant comments on the contents of the Organization ontology document, but would like to note that I have found it useful on a number of occasions. I would definitely support this becoming a W3C recommendation.
>> 
>> I would only note in passing that vCard remains a bit of a nightmare to use in practice and if a simpler way of representing addresses could be found it would make me and many others happy.  But that's not the fault of the organization ontology.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Phil Archer
> W3C eGovernment
> http://www.w3.org/egov/
> 
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1

Received on Friday, 5 April 2013 09:51:52 UTC