Subject: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations - reprise

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:01:45 -0500

Hi all,

This thread never seemed to conclude with clear consensus as to whether
folks see a need for both these specific location types rather than
being able to use a common "civic" locationType.     I went back through
the threads and the majority of the responses indicated that both of the
values should be the same (with Canada being the exception?).   Since
the thread did diverge somewhat (into how conversions etc. are done), I
would like to do a quick query to see if folks are okay with removing
those two values from the locationType in the HELD draft?   

And, just to be precise, we're proposing changing locationType from a
set of {any, civic, geodetic, postalCivic, jurisdictionalCivic,
locationURI} to a set of
{any, civic, geodetic, locationURI}.  

Regards,
Mary
Editor HELD 

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

---

From: "Marc Berryman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:08:11 -0500

Mary,

 I do not think that Jurisdiction and Postal need to be the same, often
they are not the same, since postal rarely follows the same "boundaries"
as jurisdictional. Since they may, or may not, be the same is the reason
they are both included. You can not assume they are the same.

Marc B

Marc Berryman, ENP
Geographic Information Systems
Greater Harris County 9-1-1 Emergency Network
Houston, Texas      (713) 407-2254
[email-masked]

________________________________

From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 11:02 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations -
reprise

Hi all, 

Regards, 
Mary 
Editor HELD

---

From: "Stark, Barbara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:50:46 -0400

The impression I was left with, was that it was possible to describe a
particular physical civic location with a single PIDF-LO. Within that LO
there may be jurisdictional and postal fields. These are already defined
in the PIDF-LO docs. The street address (and possibly the jurisdictional
community name) may have several (not just 2) "correct" ways to express
it, but it should be possible to translate from one to another, so only
one needs to be kept in the LIS.
 
What appeared to be touched on, but never really discussed, was whether
there needed to be the ability to say "I would like to have the mailing
address for where I am." As Guy and Jerome mentioned, the location of
the mailbox does not necessarily coincide with the physical location of
the device making the request.
 
So, I don't see value in separate jurisdictional and postal requests to
describe a single physical location, because both should be expressible
within a single PIDF-LO. There MAY be value in being able to request the
mailing address for a physical location.
Barbara 

From: Marc Berryman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 12:08 PM
To: Mary Barnes; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations -
reprise

Mary,

Marc B

Marc Berryman, ENP

Hi all, 

Regards, 
Mary 
Editor HELD 

*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA621

---

From: "Marc Linsner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:06:35 -0400

Mary,

I agree with this proposal.

-Marc-

---

From: "Stark, Barbara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:19:31 -0400

I'm uncomfortable with mixing locationURI with the other 3. A device
should be able to request a locationURI that points to a civic,
geodetic, or any. With locationURI mixed in, this suggests that
locationURI is always "any", or that whoever requests dereferencing of
the URI can request the type.
Barbara

From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 12:02 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations -
reprise

Hi all, 

Regards, 
Mary 
Editor HELD 

*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA625

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:41:07 -0500

Hi Barbara,
 
We did discuss this suggestion in the past.  One reason why it was
decided to keep it as is (and the reason put forth for the discussion in
Chicago) was that this seems to complicate things and introduce
additional complexity in terms of handling a locationURI boolean along
with an "any" for the locationType (e.g., if the boolean is false, but
"any" is requested and there are only locationURIs available at that
specific LIS, what is the expected behavior?).  And, as you mention, the
current approach is also consistent with the dereferencing being handled
separate from the request for location. 
 
As is, "any" will return all forms of location types, including all
forms of locationURIs that are available, per the description of
locationURI in section 7.5.  I guess you're asking for a way of getting
only a specific scheme of locationURI?  And, in this case, I'm assuming
you'd be using the "exact" attribute?  
 
Mary. 

From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 1:20 PM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations -
reprise

Hi all, 

Regards, 
Mary 
Editor HELD 

*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or
privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other
use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
material from all computers. GA625

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:53:17 -0400

Yes, this is how I see it

  _____  

From: Marc Linsner [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:07 PM
To: 'Mary Barnes'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations -
reprise

Mary,

-Marc-

---

From: "Stark, Barbara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:07:50 -0400

OK. I don't think it's important.
Barbara

From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:41 PM
To: Stark, Barbara; [email-masked]
Subject: locationURI as a separate flag (was RE: [Geopriv] "Postal" and
"Jurisdicational" civic locations - reprise

Hi Barbara,

 
Mary. 

Hi all, 

Regards, 
Mary 
Editor HELD 

*****

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:31:39 -0500

Hi Barbara,

I believe that the location URI fits very nicely with the other 3.

Presently the location URI points to something on the LIS that either
has the location(s) or can get the location(s) of the device. The HELD
dereference draft basically said that the requesting device can ask for
only a specific of location, but with the demise of the context, so to
went the type of control you are asking for below. This is why I wrote a
separate context draft, so a Target can specifically control the
policies associated with a location URI. I am now of the opinion that
this should be an extension rather than something that we introduce into
the base specification.

I also don't believe that the URI is always returned with "any", it says
that it may be however, or and LIS may return any other type. It is any,
not all.

The dereference draft has explicit text around the dereferencer
requesting a location URI type:

'The LCS MUST respond with a 400 "Request Error" if it receives a
request for a locationURI where HELD is being used as a dereference
protocol.'

Obviously the error number is changing, but the condition was
considered.

Cheers

James

From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, 14 September 2007 4:20 AM
To: Mary Barnes; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations -
reprise

Barbara

Hi all, 

Regards, 
Mary 
Editor HELD 

*****

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:38:30 -0500

Hi Barbara,

I am a little confused by this response.

Expressing the civic location types in the PIDF-LO is one issue.

Being able to request just a jurisdictional civic, or just a postal
civic using HELD is a different issue.

I don't think issue one is really resolved, but I also don't think that
it has any direct bearing on issues 2.

Your last sentence makes me think that you see some benefit in leaving
jurisdictionalCivic and postalCivic in HELD. Is that right?

Cheers

James

From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, 14 September 2007 3:51 AM
To: Marc Berryman; Mary Barnes; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations -
reprise

Barbara 

Mary,

Marc B

Marc Berryman, ENP

Hi all, 

Regards, 
Mary 
Editor HELD 

*****

material from all computers. GA621

---

From: "Stark, Barbara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:51:47 -0400

The reason for wanting a postal address would likely be because the
device user wants to have something mailed or delivered. If this is
true, then the goal of a "postal" request should be to get the location
where mail and packages should be sent, and not necessarily the actual
location where the device is. These locations may be the same or they
may be different, as Jerome and Guy described.
 
On the other hand, if we insist that postal formulations must still
describe the actual physical location and not necessarily a mailing
address, then I don't see what compelling use there is for such a
distinction.
 
If people want the mailing address, I can see the potential use, but I
don't care whether we do that or not. On the other hand, if people want
a postal-only formulation of a physical location, which may or may not
be useful for shipping packages and sending mail, then I don't get it.
 
As a potential LIS implementer, I don't really see the need for the
complexity of having separate street names stored for various locations,
for the special cases where they differ. Which means, I wouldn't plan on
it. Let someone use a street-name mapping function. Besides, the
location data we have in our database has 9-digit zip in most cases.
It's real easy to do a reverse lookup to get the official postal street
name, given a 9-digit zip code. 
 
So let me ask -- is "postal" supposed to be the address where people at
the current location get mail? If it can't be used to send mail, then
where's the value in providing a LO with only the postal fields in it?
Barbara

From: Winterbottom, James [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:39 PM
To: Stark, Barbara; Marc Berryman; Mary Barnes; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations -
reprise

Hi Barbara,

Cheers

James

Barbara 

Mary,

Marc B

Marc Berryman, ENP

Hi all, 

Regards, 
Mary 
Editor HELD 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
[mf2]	

*****

---

From: "Dawson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:07:55 -0500

Hi Barbara,
 
I think this confusion has been drifting around for a while... the term
"postal" is being interpreted as both a particular "form" and a
particular "use". I think the most significant intent is the "form".
 
That is:
Jurisdictional Civic is the format prescribed by some applicable
authority for the purposes of emergency services (and whatever other
service is applicable for that jurisdicational form)
Postal Civic is the format as generally prescribed for describing a
postal address and as, presumably, prescribed by some Postal service
authority.
 
The problem, of course, is that somebody's postal address may actually
be a post-office box or other location not actually associated with the
spatial location of the person/target in question. The presumption, that
the "postal" civic form is prescribed by a postal servcie authority is
probably unwarranted as well; can anyone claim this is true worldwide or
is it a bit of a North American bias?
 
Perhaps it would be better if we dropped the term "Postal" civic and
replaced it with something with less baggage - such as "Common Civic" -
with the definitition that it's the format used for prescribing a civic
address as understood colloquially for the region in question and which
is the default usage for applications which fall outside of the
jurisdictional service scope.
 
Cheers,
Martin

From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, 14 September 2007 9:52 AM
To: Winterbottom, James; Marc Berryman; Mary Barnes; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations -
reprise

 

Hi Barbara,

Cheers

James

Barbara 

Mary,

Marc B

Marc Berryman, ENP

Hi all, 

Regards, 
Mary 
Editor HELD 

*****

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:15:27 -0400

The usage of 'postal' has caused a fair amount of confusion, since it  
tends to conflate several different things:

(1) a street address, possibly with a different postal community name  
(PCN), which we already have in PIDF;

(2) special street-like addresses, such as rural carrier routes, that  
are only used for postal delivery and are meaningless to anybody else;

(3) post office boxes

(4) short addresses that only contain, say, organization name, city  
and zip code, such as those used for the Internal Revenue Service in  
the United States (example: IRS, Fresno, CA 93888-0002)

Our definition of 'civic' has always only included (1), as only that  
form satisfies the pizza delivery test. If you can't get pizza  
delivered to it, it's beyond our scope. If it weren't so long and  
unwieldy, we'd say a "(common) civic address as used by the postal  
service".

Brian has asked this before and the only interesting case that we are  
concerned about is whether there are multiple interesting forms of  
(1) that we need to distinguish, i.e., that are not just internal  
aliases of each other. (Aliases can occur, for example, if a street  
is renamed and the old name is still accepted for postal delivery.)  
So far, the conclusion seems to be 'no'.

Fortunately, we don't have to solve this problem now. If a new  
address-like place naming form is discovered somewhere, we can add it  
later, once we actually understand it and can name it.

In many cases, we'll only need to add information elements, as long  
as each (1) civic address has a single defined value. For example, if  
we wanted to add a carrier route indication, we can just add a  
corresponding label, since each house/apartment is on exactly one  
route. Clearly, for PO boxes, there is no such direct equivalence.

In short, I don't see a need for going postal.

Henning

On Sep 13, 2007, at 7:51 PM, Stark, Barbara wrote:

> true, then the goal of a "postal" request should be to get the  
> location where mail and packages should be sent, and not  
> necessarily the actual location where the device is. These  
> locations may be the same or they may be different, as Jerome and  
> Guy described.
>
> If people want the mailing address, I can see the potential use,  
> but I don't care whether we do that or not. On the other hand, if  
> people want a postal-only formulation of a physical location, which  
> may or may not be useful for shipping packages and sending mail,  
> then I don't get it.
>
> complexity of having separate street names stored for various  
> locations, for the special cases where they differ. Which means, I  
> wouldn't plan on it. Let someone use a street-name mapping  
> function. Besides, the location data we have in our database has 9- 
> digit zip in most cases. It's real easy to do a reverse lookup to  
> get the official postal street name, given a 9-digit zip code.
>
> So let me ask -- is "postal" supposed to be the address where  
> people at the current location get mail? If it can't be used to  
> send mail, then where's the value in providing a LO with only the  
> postal fields in it?
> Barbara
>
> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic  
> locations - reprise
>
> Hi Barbara,
>
>
>
> I don’t think issue one is really resolved, but I also don’t think  
> that it has any direct bearing on issues 2.
>
>
>
> Your last sentence makes me think that you see some benefit in  
> leaving jurisdictionalCivic and postalCivic in HELD. Is that right?
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic  
> locations - reprise
>
>
>
> The impression I was left with, was that it was possible to  
> describe a particular physical civic location with a single PIDF- 
> LO. Within that LO there may be jurisdictional and postal fields.  
> These are already defined in the PIDF-LO docs. The street address  
> (and possibly the jurisdictional community name) may have several  
> (not just 2) "correct" ways to express it, but it should be  
> possible to translate from one to another, so only one needs to be  
> kept in the LIS.
>
>
>
> What appeared to be touched on, but never really discussed, was  
> whether there needed to be the ability to say "I would like to have  
> the mailing address for where I am." As Guy and Jerome mentioned,  
> the location of the mailbox does not necessarily coincide with the  
> physical location of the device making the request.
>
>
>
> So, I don't see value in separate jurisdictional and postal  
> requests to describe a single physical location, because both  
> should be expressible within a single PIDF-LO. There MAY be value  
> in being able to request the mailing address for a physical location.
>
> Barbara
>
>
>
> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic  
> locations - reprise
>
> Mary,
>
>  I do not think that Jurisdiction and Postal need to be the same,  
> often they are not the same, since postal rarely follows the same  
> “boundaries” as jurisdictional. Since they may, or may not, be the  
> same is the reason they are both included. You can not assume they  
> are the same.
>
>
>
> Marc B
>
>
>
> Marc Berryman, ENP
> This thread never seemed to conclude with clear consensus as to  
> whether folks see a need for both these specific location types  
> rather than being able to use a common "civic" locationType.     I  
> went back through the threads and the majority of the responses  
> indicated that both of the values should be the same (with Canada  
> being the exception?).   Since the thread did diverge somewhat  
> (into how conversions etc. are done), I would like to do a quick  
> query to see if folks are okay with removing those two values from  
> the locationType in the HELD draft?
>
> And, just to be precise, we're proposing changing locationType from  
> a set of {any, civic, geodetic, postalCivic, jurisdictionalCivic,  
> locationURI} to a set of
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or  
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential,  
> proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review,  
> retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any  
> action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities  
> other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received  
> this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material  
> from all computers. GA621
>

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:23:11 -0500

Mary,

I don't see a need for postal and jurisdictional civic in the location
request. One of the messiest bits of code in the open source LIS is
dealing with a location request that contains civic, postalCivic and
jurisdictionalCivic.

I am for limiting this to simply civic.

Cheers
James

---

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:36:59 -0500

I'll just add my voice to the consensus.  "civic" is adequate.

As Henning points out, there probably isn't complete support for postal addresses in the current set of drafts and RFCs.

Perhaps someone can write a how-to-use-revised-civic-to-send-postal-addresses draft, along with a how-to-get-an-address-label-from-a-revised-civic-form draft.

Ta,
Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Friday, 14 September 2007 12:23 PM
> To: GEOPRIV

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:52:21 -0400

> In short, I don't see a need for going postal.
with which I totally agree.

I think we make way too much out of postal beyond what we have (PCN).

One more piece of info:
Post Office Boxes are around in various forms in various countries.  In the
U.S., it used to be common to use them for rural addressing of mail.  That
has largely disappeared.  Locations get street addresses, and they get them
because 9-1-1 requires them, and the post office goes along with the
addressing authorities.  It's not completely gone, because there are still
some areas of the country that don't have "E9-1-1", where the "E" is the
part that has automatic location showing up with the call.  Where E9-1-1 is
implemented, every actual house/farm/store/factory/... location which gets
mail has a street address.

Post Office Boxes still exist in the U.S. as mailing destinations where the
box is actually in the post office.  The thing is, that's not a location as
Geopriv would define it.

So, please, let's get rid of postalCivic and jurisdictionalCivic as protocol
elements.  It sometimes helps to explain the issues (for example, in
ecrit-framework), but we don't need protocol mechanisms beyond PCN to
represent location for the U.S.  I would not claim to speak for other
countries, but so far, we don't have any conflicting information from other
countries.

Brian

> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 10:15 PM
> To: Stark, Barbara
> Cc: GEOPRIV
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations -
> reprise
> 
> > I don't think issue one is really resolved, but I also don't think
> > "boundaries" as jurisdictional. Since they may, or may not, be the

---

From: "Carl Reed OGC Account" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:18:10 -0600

I concur. Perhaps before moving into the "postal" realm, the work of the 
OASIS UBL/CIQ technical committee and the xNAL and xAL standards should be 
reviewed.

Regards

Carl

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>; "GEOPRIV" 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 9:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations - 
reprise

> As Henning points out, there probably isn't complete support for postal 
> addresses in the current set of drafts and RFCs.
>
> Perhaps someone can write a 
> how-to-use-revised-civic-to-send-postal-addresses draft, along with a 
> how-to-get-an-address-label-from-a-revised-civic-form draft.
>
> Ta,
> Martin
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:00:28 -0400

Dear Mary,
Dear Geopriv community,

In light of what have been discussed in this thread and after further investigation, here is my position on this topic. I apologize at the onset for the length of this response.

The position exposed herein is based on the following opinions/facts:

a) Emergency service is likely to be the first tangible enabler for the deployment of a location-capable IP infrastructure;
b) Coincidentally, commercial location-based services may follow shortly thereafter;
b) User-input location is specifically disallowed for ES in Canada per regulation. As such, a reference to common-use civic format is less critical for ES;
c) While a valid and desired goal, address conversion between "legacy" MSAG-based and "common" postal-based formats should not be taken for granted, at least for the short term. Address translation should not be made a mandatory step to deploy a location-capable IP infrastructure; that in order to prevent adding undue delays to implementation for ES;
d) As such, a LIS in Canada (and any other country that may see things the same way) should be able to store multiple civic formats for a certain period of time to accommodate ES and non-ES applications. I believe at least one potential LIS vendor stated this was possible;
e) After further investigation, I concur with others that in the majority of cases also in Canada, a jurisdictional civic address should work in a postal-based application albeit certain potential corner cases similar to what was mentioned by some U.S. participants;
f) Contrary to those however, it is my opinion that those cases should not be discarded but accommodated, at least with ES in mind;

Now, specific to points raised in this thread:

1) Ability to specify different civic formats (Postal, Jurisdictional, Common or whatever) of an LO
	
I am willing to accept the verdict of the group of *initially* having only one form of civic format to be available from a civic address-capable LIS *if* all agree that this LIS would ALWAYS hold at least one jurisdictionally validated civic address per location. This civic address would therefore be assumed to be "ES-ready" i.e., routable and dispatchable in the case of an emergency call. I believe this is the position of the majority of the vocal Geopriv community.

2) Ability to ask for a specific nature of civic format through HELD

If 1) is accepted, there is no *immediate* need to support this feature in HELD or other LCPs. If the LIS holds more than one civic format for a particular location, it must supply at least the "ES-ready" LO to the location requester when locationType="any" or "civic" (with or without the "exact" attribute). Of course it would be desirable for the LO to be properly tagged to reflect the application context (if it can not be guessed by reading the LO itself) so the location recipient can differentiate between the various civic forms supplied.

In summary, since a Location-capable IP architecture should not restrict non-ES applications (which potentially implies using common-use civic format) while ensuring ES applications will be fully supported at the onset, I'm of the view that:

- The LIS should at least supply one ES-ready civic address (fine for the immediate/short term);
- Considering a LIS that supplies more than one civic format with no mechanism to differentiate between them may impede both ES and non-ES applications, it is desirable for the client to be able to distinguish the various forms by either A) the LIS providing a characterization in the response or B) the ability for the client to request a specific civic format (no characterization in the response; the client creates its own storage bin per civic "types"). Both options are acceptable to me.

With this added flexibility comes the ability to support the "corner cases" that may not be otherwise accommodated which could mean disaster in the case of ES applications.

It can be addressed now, or later.

Best regards,	

Guy Caron
________________________________________
De : Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Envoyé : 13 septembre 2007 12:02
À : [email-masked]
Objet : [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations - reprise

Hi all, 
This thread never seemed to conclude with clear consensus as to whether folks see a need for both these specific location types rather than being able to use a common "civic" locationType.     I went back through the threads and the majority of the responses indicated that both of the values should be the same (with Canada being the exception?).   Since the thread did diverge somewhat (into how conversions etc. are done), I would like to do a quick query to see if folks are okay with removing those two values from the locationType in the HELD draft?   
And, just to be precise, we're proposing changing locationType from a set of {any, civic, geodetic, postalCivic, jurisdictionalCivic, locationURI} to a set of
{any, civic, geodetic, locationURI}.  
Regards, 
Mary 
Editor HELD