RE: Distinguishing between types of address (locn)

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 9/25/15, Simon.Cox@csiro.au <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:

 Subject: RE: Distinguishing between types of address (locn)
 To: mail@makxdekkers.com, richard.murcott@gmail.com
 Cc: pano.maria@taxonic.com, public-locadd@w3.org
 Date: Friday, September 25, 2015, 11:50 AM
 
Simon,

Aren't we mixing preconceptions about how the gateways to commercial properties {HTTPS} and "public lands" {HTTP} "ought" to look ? Rather an impediment to consensus, and not a good measure of data quality either.

--Gannon

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 Ø 
 I don’t think this group can
 require its members to pay a fee to get access to relevant
 information 
 
   
 Are all
 your journal subscriptions free? ISO’s paywall isn’t
 really any different to that. I agree that it would be nice
 if it was free, but its not
  the only paywall, and somehow it is perceived differently.
  
 
   
 
 
 From: Makx Dekkers
 [mailto:mail@makxdekkers.com]
 
 
 Sent: Friday, 25 September 2015 9:39 AM
 
 To: richard.murcott@gmail.com
 
 Cc: 'Pano Maria'
 <pano.maria@taxonic.com>; public-locadd@w3.org
 
 Subject: RE: Distinguishing between types of address
 (locn) 
 
 
    
 Dear all, 
    
 If there is an ‘international
 consensus’ that resolves a problem that was raised here,
 that consensus should be out in the open. If it’s not, it
  should not be part of this discussion. 
    
 I don’t think this group can
 require its members to pay a fee to get access to relevant
 information. If it does, I’ll sign off. 
    
 Makx. 
    
 
 
 
 From:
 richard.murcott@gmail.com
 [mailto:richard.murcott@gmail.com]
 
 
 Sent: 25 September 2015 04:13
 
 To: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
 
 Cc: Pano Maria <pano.maria@taxonic.com>;
 public-locadd@w3.org
 
 Subject: Re: Distinguishing between types of address
 (locn) 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 Re: Could Richard maybe specify what this
 international consensus is? 
 
 
 
   
 
 It's 65pp with UML models and explanatory
 narrative. Would be a great investment Makx i.e. save time,
 get everyone singing from the same songbook. Just sorting
 out the semantics for the elements/characteristics of
 address
  is a coup. A lot of significant entities participated in
 developing this consensus, including the Universal Postal
 Union (UPU).  
 
 
   
 
 
 Jurisdictions are publishing conforming
 Profiles and making these freely accessible. However, each
 will conform to selected parts of the ISO consensus; parts
 relevant to their jurisdiction address schemes. Besides,
 Profiles
  inherit ISO patterns by referencing the ISO model, so
 likely a reader would still need the published ISO narrative
 to round out comprehension of a Profile. 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 It is
 possible to access models from the 
 ISO/TC211 model repository, but the models (typically)
 are devoid of the helpful (essential) narrative/guidance you
 get in the published ISO standard.  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 BTW I
 wasn't aware the final version was available for
 procurement yet. I know it's not far away (i.e. TC211
 has finished with it, so it's in the ISO publishing
 stage). 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 Richard 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
   
 
 
 On 25
 September 2015 at 05:17, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
 wrote: 
 
 
 
 Could
 Richard maybe specify what this international consensus is?
 I see that I need to
  pay CHF 58 to read the document… 
   
 Makx. 
   
   
 
 
 
 From:
 richard.murcott@gmail.com
 [mailto:richard.murcott@gmail.com]
 
 
 Sent: 24 September 2015 11:03
 
 To: Pano Maria <pano.maria@taxonic.com>
 
 Cc: public-locadd@w3.org
 
 Subject: Re: Distinguishing between types of address
 (locn) 
 
 
   
 
 
 I don't know what "Core Location
 Vocabulary" is.  
 
 
   
 
 
 However,   
 
 New Zealand has been paying close attention to
 the development of
 
 ISO 19160-1:2015 ( my understanding is that this is
 already at Stage 60..00 - International Standard under
 publication ). 
 
 The standard provides an international
 consensus on a model/approach to 'distinguish between
 different types of address'. An innovation of the
 standard is to
  cater the specification of classes of address. 
 
 
 
 
 
 New Zealand, like other jurisdictions
 participating in
 ISO/TC211, is creating a
 conforming Profile of this new standard to articulate
 NZ's address characteristics.  
 
 
   
 
 
 Richard 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 Richard Murcott   |   M +64 27 2243
 041 
 
 
   
 
 On 24 September 2015 at 01:26, Pano Maria
 <pano.maria@taxonic.com>
 wrote: 
 
 
 
 Hi all, 
   
 I have a question that I’m struggling with.
 How can I distinguish between different types of
 addresses? 
 Say a person has a home address and a postal
 address that are distinct. Same could go for a
 company 
 That has a postal address and a registration
 address.. 
 Is there a standard or agreed upon way to
 express this using the Core Location Vocabulary? 
 Thanks in advance! 
   
 Kind regards, 
 Pano

Received on Friday, 25 September 2015 18:44:36 UTC