Re: [ciq] Identifiers in CIQ schemes

["David Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Fulton,

I suggest using the GPS coordinates.

Only God has control over how those get assigned...

But you would have to separate the owner entity ID from
the GPS ID - because people and companies move.

And you do need a system for labelling large tall buildings
to make the GPS + five or similar - unique to a location
inside it!

DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fulton Wilcox" <fulton.wilcox@coltsnecksolutions.com>
To: <colin.wallis@ssc.govt.nz>
Cc: "'Max Voskob'" <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>; <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 10:15 PM
Subject: RE: [ciq] Identifiers in CIQ schemes


> Colin,
>
> Giving every address what amounts to a serial number sounds harmless
except
> that doing so is quite a bit of work.
>
> Perhaps one question to be addressed (no pun intended) is what happens
over
> time? In the U.S., the postal service reorganizes ZIP codes for locales
that
> are experiencing rapid growth. Companies buy and sell each other and
> properties are subdivided or sometimes reunified. There are short-lived
> addresses such as PO Boxes and "care/of" arrangements. Addresses are
highly
> perishable.
>
> To make serialization useful, would you maintain successor and predecessor
> tables of all these changes? How would you propagate and retire serial
> numbers across impacted databases?
>
> In return for this work, what is the payback?
>
>
>                                     Fulton Wilcox
>                                     Colts Neck Solutions LLC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max Voskob [mailto:max.voskob@paradise.net.nz]
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 9:36 PM
> To: colin.wallis@ssc.govt.nz; ciq@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ciq] Identifiers in CIQ schemes
>
> Hi Colin,
>
> In fact, NZ xNAL already has the ability to store ID for almost anything
and
> use IDs instead of the actual address elements.
>
> Shared IDs are good when there is some aurotitave source of them.
> There is no problem in assigning an ID to an address or location or just a
> geographical name. The problem starts when you get the ID and want to know
> what it means.
>
> The infrastructure needed to convert addresses into IDs and vice versa
might
> be a show stopper.
>
> E.g. IDs can be sourced from LINZ BDE, but again, the infrastructure to do
> just that is undefined.
>
> Would be interesting to know what your thoughts are.
>
> Cheers,
> Max
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: colin.wallis@ssc.govt.nz [mailto:colin.wallis@ssc.govt.nz]
> Sent: Friday, 11 February 2005 15:11
> To: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ciq] Identifiers in CIQ schemes
>
> Dear TC
>
> We have been having some debate here in NZ Government circles about the
need
> to develop a unique identifier for each address.  This would be in
addition
> to using, say, Customer ID in xCIL.  This idea is to be able to link the
> various types of address (physical, geospatial, emergency, rural) held in
> government through the use of an id which all agencies can map back to
their
> own records.  We would also need to validate that with fields like:
authors
> name, last updated date and reason for update.  There are several issues
> around this but a key one, is how we might handle it in XML address files.
> 1) Should we consider an address identifier for future releases?
> 2) Should this be part of the actual xAL address file or remain outside
it?
>
> What re-ignited my thinking on this was this release from W3C:
> http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2005-02-09-a.html
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the
> OASIS TC), go to
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ciq/members/leave_workgroup.php
> .
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ciq/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>
>