Subject: RE: [Geopriv] URI in civic-lo

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 19:23:32 -0600

Ouch!!
I am of the opinion that that is in the .001% group, and while I do have
concern for their plight, I really don't think that we can be expected
to produce a specification that meets their requirements.

I don't see the current specification as being oriented toward any
nation in particular, although I must admit that NENA is the only group
thus far to come provide detailed view of they require. The Japanese
delegation have indicated their requirements that where not met by the
original specification, and I would strongly encourage any other groups
that feel the current specification does not meet their needs to speak
up now so we don't have to keep rehashing this specification.

Cheers
James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf
> Of Andrew Daviel
> Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 12:11 PM
> To: Henning Schulzrinne
> Cc: [email-masked]; Andrew Daviel
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] URI in civic-lo
> 
> 
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> 
> > I admit being confused by this comment. The civic draft defines the
> > meaning of the different elements, some specific to a particular
country
> > (identified by the country identifier). Clearly, this is within the
> > precision limitations of the English language, so this relies on
people
> > agreeing what a "street", say, is.
> 
> I guess within each country that there are usually postal guides that
> people may or may not follow. Certainly in the UK there was some
variation
> of things like abbreviations of county names, short forms for
> towns and villages that someone from elsewhere would have a hard time
> parsing. It was more in relation to the organization-specific things
> like unit that there needs to be a way to define them. I think James'
> suggestion to expand the XLM schema would work for this.
> 
> 
> NENA that you refer to in dhcp-civil seems rather US-centric, maybe
even
> US-urban-centric, though you do discuss other jurisdictions.
> 
> I was trying to figure if my mother's old address in the UK could be
> described; I think so - it would have A2,A3,LMK and ZIP. Not so sure
about
> my recreational property - Lot nn, Helby Island - which does not have
a
> postal address, or a street. Or postal service. If it did have a box
> number it would be elsewhere (Bamfield). I guess you covered that with
> PCNp; good ..
> 
> I recall a magazine article by someone living in the Arctic. They
ordered
> something online, and the web app flatly refused to accept a box
number.
> So they invented a "street address" like "the blue tent, snowshoe
avenue".
> Normally they would fly into town a few hundred miles away to pick
> up mail  marked "to be called for" but could not put that in the form
> 
> --
> Andrew Daviel
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 20:33:06 -0600

Thanks Martin.

I think that hits the nail on the head.
I don't think that further definition in GeoPriv is warranted.
I would like to see people use the schema expansions or external
application mechanisms to restrict the definitions if required.

Cheers
James

> From: Thomson, Martin
> Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 1:26 PM
> To: Winterbottom, James; Andrew Daviel; Henning Schulzrinne
> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] URI in civic-lo
> 
> To my view, this discussion can be broken down into two pieces:
> 
> The first part: is the current scheme for describing the meaning of
the
> civic fields mean adequate?
> 
> The current scheme consists of a series of English language
descriptions
> of the fields, with some specific meaning given to the fields
depending on
> the country.  I tend to agree with Henning that the descriptions are
> sufficiently precise.
> 
> The second part: should addresses be normalized in some fashion?
> 
> NENA has stated that they want this for their civic addresses - they
> define a VDB that is responsible for this task.  Obviously, someone
> considers this important, but is this a requirement for GEOPRIV, or
are we
> happy to leave this to other groups?  Do we need to provide them with
some
> guidance, a framework or such?
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 08:01:10 -0500

Henning,

Here is the link for the Canadian Postal guide:

http://www.canadapost.ca/personal/tools/pg/manual/b03-e.asp?sblid=addstands

Guy Caron

-----Message d'origine-----
De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Henning Schulzrinne
Envoyé : 9 novembre 2005 22:13
À : Thomson, Martin
Cc : [email-masked]; Andrew Daviel; Andrew Daviel
Objet : Re: [Geopriv] URI in civic-lo

I would note that NENA refers to USPS Pub. No. 28 as its addressing 
guideline. It goes into great detail, such as describing appropriate 
abbreviations for streets (Ave, Blvd, etc.).

It would be nice if there were pointers to similar documents for other 
jurisdictions. These are often hard to find, so having these cited 
somewhere is useful, but maybe a web page is a more appropriate resource 
for that. I'd gladly take pointers. Maybe the PIDF-LO civic revision can 
also point to these, as having some such pointers is better than none, 
even if the list can never be complete and if some of the information 
may be outdated at some point.

Thomson, Martin wrote:
> The first part: is the current scheme for describing the meaning of the civic fields mean adequate?
> 
> The current scheme consists of a series of English language descriptions of the fields, with some specific meaning given to the fields depending on the country.  I tend to agree with Henning that the descriptions are sufficiently precise.
> 
> NENA has stated that they want this for their civic addresses - they define a VDB that is responsible for this task.  Obviously, someone considers this important, but is this a requirement for GEOPRIV, or are we happy to leave this to other groups?  Do we need to provide them with some guidance, a framework or such?
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin

---

From: "Marc Berryman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 07:05:07 -0600

I consider the current scheme describing civic fields is adequate, but
you hit on another important aspect - normalization of the addresses. I
think this merits more discussion within this group, because today this
is a big mess in many areas.

Thanks,
Marc Berryman

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Thomson, Martin
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 8:26 PM
To: Winterbottom, James; Andrew Daviel; Henning Schulzrinne
Cc: [email-masked]; Andrew Daviel
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] URI in civic-lo

The first part: is the current scheme for describing the meaning of the
civic fields mean adequate?

The current scheme consists of a series of English language descriptions
of the fields, with some specific meaning given to the fields depending
on the country.  I tend to agree with Henning that the descriptions are
sufficiently precise.

NENA has stated that they want this for their civic addresses - they
define a VDB that is responsible for this task.  Obviously, someone
considers this important, but is this a requirement for GEOPRIV, or are
we happy to leave this to other groups?  Do we need to provide them with
some guidance, a framework or such?

Cheers,
Martin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
[mf2]

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:59:32 -0600

Okay I agree that we will add something that effect, but probably not
restrict it to emergency if that is okay.

Behalf
> Of Andrew Daviel
> Sent: Friday, 11 November 2005 8:51 AM
> To: Henning Schulzrinne
> Cc: [email-masked]
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> 
> > I think the general gist is that valid emergency addresses also tend
to
> > be valid postal addresses, but the converse is not always true. I'll
add
> > the list to my civic address notes collection.
> 
> "tend to", maybe. But there are a whole lot of recreational properties
> without postal service, or whose postal service is a box number in the
> nearest town. Then there are funny things like live-aboards at a
marina,
> whose "address" might include a pier and slip number, and millions of
> people living in slums or refugee camps. Hopefully these cases can
> be handled via some mechanism like GPS or mobile cell mapping, as for
> vehicles, but you can't assume that everyone's dwelling  has a
"normal"
> North American type address. (given the slum problem, I wonder about
the
> 0.01% figure ..)
> 
> However, in the interests of actually getting anything done, I'll
> stop nit-picking as long as it is acknowledged that this kind of
> schema cannot describe every fixed location that might need emergency
> service.
> 
> 
> Andrew Daviel
> Vancouver Webpages
> 
>