enforcing a restriction in the schema seems like a poor choice. I am
loth to define a null road name; that's a big change to the way PIDF
works; if you don't have an element, you don't include it, rather than
include it with a null value.
I'll ask around the PIDF cognoscenti to see what they think.
Brian
On Jul 4, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Geoff Thompson wrote:
> Brian-
> It seems lik a bad idea to let perfectly good assumptions (like a MP
> or a house number "needs" a road name) get screwed up by unusual
> exception as you have noted.
>
> Why not, instead, just charge ahead but allow a special value of
> road name ("NULL" ?) that notes that in this case it is known that a
> road name does not exist? The entered value should probably be
> differentiated from that which would be provided if the value of
> road name were "unknown".
>
> Geoff
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2010 16:53:18 -0400
>> From: Brian Rosen<br@brianrosen.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Fwd: I-D
>> Action:draft-george-geopriv-lamp-post-00.txt
>> To: Carl Reed<creed@opengeospatial.org>
>> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
>> Message-ID:<917C86FD-5CF8-42D8-AF6C-18339497D1FA@brianrosen.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed";
>> DelSp="yes"
>>
>> I am a co-author on this draft, and the milepost addition to the lamp
>> post original was motivated by the NENA requirement to have a
>> milepost.
>>
>> I agree that the MP nearly always needs a road name. So does a house
>> number. The current documents don't have requirements like that,
>> primarily because we keep finding odd cases that don't meet what we
>> thought was a simple rule.
>>
>> Brian
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
