[ciq] Re: UK Names standard (1/1)

[Ram Kumar <rkumar@msi.com.au>]

Robert

> Ram 
> 
> On 8 November I attended the second meeting of the Local Authority group 
> who have tasked themselves with creating a UK standard for names. 
> 
> Despite my pushing xNL as the basis for the standard, it was argued that 
> they needed something simpler and more related to the needs of Local 
> Authorities, though I did manage to get a copy of the xNL Specifications 
> and Description Document, circulated to all the members of the group, some 
> 500 around the country.

Our standard can be used in either a simpler fashion or a complex detailed 
fashion (eg. address lines vs detailed elementisation). This is the 
flexibility we provide.

> 
> The draft "standard" that has emerged is seriously weak and has an 
> obsession with sizing fields, and creating keys.(I have attached a copy)

I will look into it.

> 
> A good basis of handling names is essential for the UK National Electoral 
> register project which is in the final stages of tendering.

Election and Voter Services TC group of OASIS is concentrating on developing 
a global standard. Their group is chaired by Anwar Choudary, Director of the 
e-cabinet of UK Govt. His group is flying down from UK to meet with the CIQ 
commitee at the XML 2001 Conference. The purpose of this meeting is to 
discuss with us the possibility of using our name and address standards as 
part of their electoral registration process. The reason why they are keen to 
talk to us is because our standard is "Global", ie application independent 
and open.  I am not sure whether the UK National Electoral register project 
as any relationship with the e-cabine group of UK govt.

> 
> I noted in John Borras's email of 22 October that he refers to standards 
> for names and addresses, as far as I am aware there is as yet no standard 
> for names, and the address standard is BS7666 which is proving impossible 
> to implement as a gazetteer. 

> 
> John may not be aware of the difficulties with BS7666 because the whole of 
> this area has become highly politicised, with the standards "owners" IdEA 
> the national advisory group for Local Authorities continuing to argue 
> despite all evidence that BS7666 in it's present form is viable.
> 
> I have compared the BS7666 with xAL, essentially all addresses presented 
> in BS7666 format can be handled in xAL but not the reverse. 

>There is a 
> tendency for BS7666 to describe the world as the authors would like it to 
> be rather than as it really is. 

You are absolutely correct Robert.

> 
> A good example of this divergence is that BS7666 does not allow for 
> dependent Thoroughfares. This means there is no coherent way of handling 
> entities such as railway arches, named parades of shops, and named groups 
> of houses.

As you note the beauty of our standards is that they provide all elements to 
describe an address and at the same time provides the option to applications 
to pick and choose what they want to use. 

Thanks for your feedback and efforts. Appreciated. I have copied this
e-mail to the CIQ mailing list.

Regards

Ram

> 
> Regards
> 
> Robert James
> 
> Partner White Wulf Consultants
> robertj@cix.co.uk
> 01777 228269