It seems to me that this is somewhat different than "if you don't have
an element, you don't include it".
The cases you cite are more "we do have the element, the known name is
an empty value".
(that being significantly different from "unknown" or unsupplied
for an unknown reason)
It seems simpler to change the syntax than to do something like what the
US Feds did a number of years ago. That was to decree that (in order to
qualify for federal money for local rescue squads) every house in your
area had to have a street address with both a registered street name
(beit a private or public street) and a monotonic "house" number. No
surprise, that imposed a significant real world implementation burden
with lots of hangover.
I look forward to the feedback from the cognoscenti
Geoff
On 4/7/10 3:23 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:
> While I do want to change the basic way the PIDF schema is defined,
> 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
