Re: street (was: more schema-08 notes)

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

The examples we give, as well as the prose describing the
attribute type, should be consistent with X.520.

The X.520 example is: "Arnulfstraße 60".
The X.520 description is:
        The Street Address attribute type specifies a site for
        the local distribution and physical delivery IN a postal
        address, i.e. the street name, place, avenue, and the
        house number.  When used as a component of a directory name,
        it identifies the street address at which the named object
        is located or with which it is associated in some other
        important way.

Emphasis on IN added.


At 06:56 AM 3/30/2005, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>Andrew Sciberras writes:
>>>Hi Hallvard,
>>>
>>>> Section 2.34, street, could use an example with ", " between components,
>>>> to distinguish it from attrs with Postal Address syntax.  I've seen
>>>> these syntaxes being confused in both directions.
>> (...)
>>
>> The street attribute type is intended for a different usage than the
>> attribute types that use the Postal Address syntax.
>>
>> Lets take this address as an example (Just something I grabbed from the
>> IETF webpage):
>>
>> Minneapolis Hilton and Towers
>> 1001 Marquette Avenue
>> Minneapolis, MN 55403 USA
>>
>> If you wanted to represent this address in its entirety, then you
>> would use an attribute with a Postal Address syntax.
>
>Well, our site's directory doesn't, and we are not alone.  We'd rather
>use a well-known attribute than invent our own which only our own
>clients would know about.  For that matter, our data source for street
>is harder for a program to parse.  It's partly free form and maintaining
>it gets lower priority than the postalAddress source: People complain if
>the postal address is wrong, since they'd lose snail mail.
>
>> I don't see how you can draw a comparison between this representation
>> of an address and what 'street' has to offer.
>
>street and postalAddress contain similar data, so people sometimes treat
>them the same way.  That is pretty "obvious", after all.  So I've seen
>streets with '$' in the LDAP directory, and clients that break up street
>addresses at '$'s.
>
>> The intention of 'street' would be to hold the following value:
>> "1001 Marquette Avenue"
>>
>> And, 'st' would be: "Minneapolis"
>> And 'postalCode' would be: "55403"
>
>Not at our site.  postalCode, if we used it, would be the postal code of
>the postal address.  Usually that is a postbox and the street address
>has another postal code.  So street is e.g.  "Research Street 3, 0373
>OSLO" or "Admin. building, Problem street 7, 0313 OSLO" (in Norwegian).
>That fits the description of street:
>
>   physical addresses of the object to which the entry corresponds, such
>   as an address for package delivery.
>
>Oslo is big enough that omitting the postal code would not be a good
>idea for package delivery.
>
>> So, I guess my point is, I don't believe that there should be an example
>> with ", " to separate components, when the attribute type isn't really
>> designed to hold multiple components within a single value.
>
>It's true it's not designed for multiple components.  I should have said
>that if one wants to stuff multiple components into it, the natural way
>is with ", ".  Now that I think of it, I suppose CRLF would be another
>way but I haven't seen that usage.
>
>-- 
>Hallvard