Re: Distinguishing between types of address (locn)

Re "...pay a fee to get access to relevant information"  ?

I note that different standards development organisations (SDO's) survive
through different business (funding) models. Some of these enable experts
to *engage *in the process of developing consensus for free (ISO). Others
require subscription membership in order to be able to join a working group
(typically these would be industry-driven bodies - expert staff don't pay,
but their employer does). Others might be more 'open' than this. But
surely, someone is paying somehow, somewhere in the value chain to achieve
these standards. Experts get the luxury to 'volunteer' time to contribute,
and someone must be enabling that, somehow. There must be an opportunity
cost (*what else of value could we be doing with our time*!) So $'s are
woven in somewhere.

However, typically standards are shared (freely) within standards
development communities (at least within/between ISO technical groups),
restricted for use for the standards development effort i.e. not
on-selling, etc.

ISO also enables 'liaisons' with other recognised international standards
development organisations.
Has W3C considered a formal (free) liaison with ISO/TC211 ?
Here's a link to the many existing liaisons with this technical committee:
http://www.isotc211.org/organizn.htm#liaisons

A consensus or best practice also becomes apparent through implementations.
Some entities are now freely sharing examples of profiles developed (or
under development) :
http://standards.iso.org/iso/19160/-1/

Richard


On 25 September 2015 at 19:39, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com> wrote:

> 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
> <http://www.isotc211.org/hmmg/HTML/root.html>, 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
> <http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=61710>
> ( 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
> <http://www.isotc211.org>, 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
>
>
>
>
>