Re: Distinguishing between types of address (locn)

Re: I don't understand how one site (=physical location) can have two
different addresses, one the registration address and one the postal
address.

An addressable object may have more than one valid address, even for the
same class of address (e.g. physical addresses). It's a common scenario. A
simple case is where a property is situated on the corner of two addressed
thoroughfares. It's important to identify and relate such addresses. (alias
addresses)

The semantics and models in the new ISO standard focus on sorting these
kinds of things, and scopes numerous other complexities and nuances about
addressing. It's easy to underestimate the complexities that arise with
addresses. Helpfully, we now have a concept model to guide us.

Richard


On 24 September 2015 at 22:25, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> >
> > > I think this is what you should do. Unless the two sites correspond to
> > > the same site.
> >
> > I don't follow. I do mean that they are one and the same site.
> > Say I have an organization O with site S1. And S1 has a registration
> address
> > Ar1 and a postal address Ap1. Would I then have to model an additional
> > instance S1'
> > representing the same site just to express the different addresses?
> >
>
> I don't understand how one site (=physical location) can have two
> different addresses, one the registration address and one the postal
> address.
> Or is the issue that an *organisation* can have a postal address that is
> different from the registration address? If that is the issue, I'd argue
> that two different addresses are associated with different physical
> locations. E.g. the physical location of a post office box is at the post
> office, not at the location where the organisation has its office.
>
> Makx.
>
>
>