RE: Distinguishing between types of address (locn)

Hi all,



On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:25:18 +0200, Makx Dekkers wrote:
>>>> 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.

Interesting point. In hindsight registration address was probably not the best
example to go with. I apologize for that. Take this Dutch Business Register
case for instance:
<http://data.stelselvanbasisregistraties.nl/nhr/doc/concept/Vestiging>.
A site (Vestiging) can have both a visiting address (bezoekadres) and
postal address (postadres).
It’s also good to note that in this model a formal organization itself is not
attributed an address directly; only via its site.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:46:20 +0200, Frans Knibbe wrote:
>>> Yes, if an organisation is registred at a PO box somewhere that would be a
>>> different site. The organization vocabulary has taken this into account,
>>> see the description of org:hasSite <http://www.w3.org/ns/org#hasSite>:
>>> *"Indicates
>>> a site at which the Organization has some presence even if only indirect
>>> (e.g. virtual office or a professional service which is acting as the
>>> registered address for a company)"*. Both org:hasPrimarySite and
>>> org:hasRegistredSite are subproperties of org:hasSite, so this remark goes
>>> for those properties too.

Thanks for pointing that out. This is useful to me.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 13:44:08 +1200, Richard Murcott wrote:
>> 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, could you give an example how one would model a case of multiple
addresses of different classes for the same addressable object using the ISO
standard?


On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:53:31 +0200, Makx Dekkers wrote:
> I was just wondering whether Pano’s question had to do with *two different places* associated with a legal entity, e.g. registered versus operating address. If I misunderstood Pano’s question, I apologise for creating confusion.

Makx, it was my fault for taking an unclear example. I did mean one object with
multiple address types. Nonetheless, it led to a very interesting discussion.

Thank you all for that.

Kind regards,
Pano