Re: Distinguishing between types of address (locn)

Hello Richard, Serena,

Is there any involvement of the OGC in ISO 19160-1? The OGC makes many
standards from the ISO-191* range available as free (open) standards. Could
that be the case for ISO 19160 too?

Also I wonder if there is involvement from INSPIRE in development of ISO
19160-1. The INSPIRE addresses theme
<http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/cms/_code_5200.cfm?tn=Addresses&tid=35&ABR=ad> has
a model for harmonizing address specifications in Europe. It would be good
if ISO 19160-1 is compatible.

Regards,
Frans



2015-09-26 16:48 GMT+02:00 Serena Coetzee <serenacoetzee@gmail.com>:

> The address model in ISO 19160-1 allows two ways of associating an address
> with a location:
>
> 1. The location (coordinates) may be an attribute of the address itself.
> 2. The address is associated with an addressable object (such as a
> building) - the object has a location.
>
> An address may also be associated to ‘external' information, such as
> customers or land parcels or whatever else one wants to associate with an
> address.
>
> Regards,
> Serena
>
> On 25 Sep 2015, at 12:23, Pano Maria <pano.maria@taxonic.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>