Subject: [Geopriv] Appetite for Street and House number prefix fields in PIDF-LO?

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:14:47 -0400

Recently, NENA has been comparing the PIDF-LO (RFC4119 extended by
RFC5139) to a new proposed (U.S.) federal addressing standard.  Two
discrepancies have been identified that warrant some discussion, and a
possible extension to PIDF-LO.  They both have the characteristic that
there is an existing defined field for a suffix, but there is no prefix.
The two places where this is true is the Street (Road) name, for which
there is an STS Street Suffix, but not a Street/Road Prefix, and the
House Number, for which there is an HNS, but no HNP.

An example of a street name prefix is Rue De La Alexander, or Boulevard
Bianco.

An example of a house number prefix is A-234

Of course, as in the Austrian system, we can find ways around the lack
of the right field.  I do however think that symmetricity is a
reasonable argument for actually adding the fields to PIDF.

If the work group agrees, I will prepare a draft.

Brian

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:24:00 -0400

Good idea.

(As a side note, the W3C geo working group is trying very hard to just  
create a civic address that collapses all civic address fields into  
generic bit-dump address fields. More GEOPRIV experts wouldn't hurt: http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/)

On Mar 13, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Rosen, Brian wrote:

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

---

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 18:31:03 -0500

Hi Brian,

Ignoring any meaning you might derive from the label for the moment, is it possible that the STS field could be used?  I know that French speaking countries generally put the street/Blvd/Rue label before the thoroughfare name, could we not just rely on that being the case rather than adding a new field?  Is there any risk of ambiguity if this is done?  That is, are there cases where prefix and suffix coexist?

You'll note that there is a great richness in house numbers in Austria, including prefixes, ranges, suffixes and all sorts of mess.  Karl Heinz managed to unambiguously map these to existing fields.

Cheers,
Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Rosen, Brian
> Sent: Saturday, 14 March 2009 2:15 AM
> To: GEOPRIV
> Subject: [Geopriv] Appetite for Street and House number prefix fields
> inPIDF-LO?
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

---

From: "Marc Berryman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:20:27 -0500

Martin,
I quite agree with you on the excellent work done by Heinz in the Austria examples and I think the PIDF-LO is slowly moving toward having too many fields that will fit every possible exception that it will soon become difficult to be consistently managed in a truly interoperable way that it was intended.

Thanks,
 Marc B.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] on behalf of Thomson, Martin
Sent: Sun 3/15/09 6:31 PM
To: Rosen, Brian; GEOPRIV
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Appetite for Street and House number prefix fieldsinPIDF-LO?
 
Hi Brian,

Cheers,
Martin

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:48:56 -0400

Although I am not aware of a street that has both a prefix and a suffix, you
cannot tell whether, for example, the street is Boulevard Bianco or Bianco
Boulevard, at least in North America.  We could have two fields: the name
and a flag if it was before or after, but I think that just having prefix
and suffix is more appropriate.

You can have both a prefix and a suffix on the house number, although it's
probably rare.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Thomson, Martin
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:31 PM
To: Rosen, Brian; GEOPRIV
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Appetite for Street and House number prefix fields
inPIDF-LO?

Hi Brian,

Ignoring any meaning you might derive from the label for the moment, is it
possible that the STS field could be used?  I know that French speaking
countries generally put the street/Blvd/Rue label before the thoroughfare
name, could we not just rely on that being the case rather than adding a new
field?  Is there any risk of ambiguity if this is done?  That is, are there
cases where prefix and suffix coexist?

You'll note that there is a great richness in house numbers in Austria,
including prefixes, ranges, suffixes and all sorts of mess.  Karl Heinz
managed to unambiguously map these to existing fields.

Cheers,
Martin

> If the work group agrees, I will prepare a draft.

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