Intent to define - New Addresses

[David F.]

What do people think about defining a few new address types? I'm
thinking that in addition to "Home" and "Business", there should be
"Billing" and "Shipping".

Thoughts?

[Rowan Kerr]

I'd agree with that. Very common attributes for something like an
ecommerce site.

[David Fuelling]

How about the following then:

http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddress/shipping	ShippingAddress
http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddressAdditional/shipping	Shipping Address 2
http://axschema.org/contact/city/shipping	Shipping City
http://axschema.org/contact/state/shipping	Shipping State/Province
http://axschema.org/contact/country/shipping	Shipping Country
http://axschema.org/contact/postalCode/shipping	Shipping Postal code

http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddress/billing	Billing Address
http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddressAdditional/billing	Billing Address 2
http://axschema.org/contact/city/billing	Billing City
http://axschema.org/contact/state/billing	Billing State/Province
http://axschema.org/contact/country/billing	Billing Country
http://axschema.org/contact/postalCode/billing	Billing Postal code

[David Fuelling]

Hey Group,

I agree with Mark's comments below about having a 3rd address line for international addresses, and am copying his suggestion (see below) for a proposed change to the AXSchema "address" attributes.

David 

On Nov 20, 2007 3:54 AM, m1bxd <m1...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Yes I agree and your proposal looks sound, apart from the fact with UK
addresses, we could really do with 3 top address lines!

EG:

Address1
Address2
Address3
City
State/Province/County
Country
Postal code

For example my old parents address used to be:

House name
1, Street name
Village
City (actually nearest town)
UK
Post code

And for the UK, this lengthy address is not uncommon, so please could
you propose this for me?

Cheers Mark

[David Fuelling]

While we're on the topic, it seems like changing the name of the address attributes would make them a bit clearer, especially if we add a 3rd address line.  How about something like the following, instead of using the "postalAddressAdditional" naming scheme:

http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddress/home                 Home Address 1 
http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddress/home2                 Home Address 2  
http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddress/home3                 Home Address 3 

http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddress/business                 Business Address 1 
http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddress/business2                 Business Address 2  
http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddress/business3                 Business Address 3 

http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddress/shipping                 Shipping Address 1 
http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddress/shipping2                 Shipping Address 2  
http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddress/shipping3                 Shipping Address 3 

http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddress/billing                      Billing Address 1
http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddress/billing2                     Billing Address 2
http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddress/billing3                     Billing Address 3

[Mark Cross]

David,

I would also like to see it proposed for the other address blocks as well, thus:

Address
http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddress/home     Address      
http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddressAdditional/home     Address 2      
http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddressAdditional/home     Address 3
http://axschema.org/contact/city/home     City      
http://axschema.org/contact/state/home     State/Province      
http://axschema.org/contact/country/home     Country      
http://axschema.org/contact/postalCode/home     Postal code      
 
http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddress/business     Address      
http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddressAdditional/business     Address 2      
http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddressAdditional/business     Address 3
http://axschema.org/contact/city/business     City      
http://axschema.org/contact/state/business     State/Province      
http://axschema.org/contact/country/business     Country      
http://axschema.org/contact/postalCode/business     Postal code

http://axschema.org/x/contact/postalAddress/billing      Billing Address
http://axschema.org/x/contact/postalAddressAdditional/billing     Billing Address 2
http://axschema.org/x/contact/postalAddressAdditional/billing     Billing Address 3
http://axschema.org/x/contact/city/billing     Billing City
http://axschema.org/x/contact/state/billing     Billing State
http://axschema.org/x/contact/country/billing     Billing Country
http://axschema.org/x/contact/postalCode/billing     Billing Postal Code
 
http://axschema.org/x/contact/postalAddress/shipping     Shipping Address
http://axschema.org/x/contact/postalAddressAdditional/shipping     Shipping Address 2
http://axschema.org/x/contact/postalAddressAdditional/shipping     Shipping Address 3
http://axschema.org/x/contact/city/shipping     Shipping City
http://axschema.org/x/contact/state/shipping     Shipping State
http://axschema.org/x/contact/country/shipping     Shipping Country
http://axschema.org/x/contact/postalCode/shipping     Shipping Postal Code

Cheers Mark (OpenID.co.uk)
--
PS Should have posted it myself yesterday, but didn't want to muck-up anything for the group.

---

Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:49:52 -0700
From: sapp...@gmail.com
To: axsc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Intent to define - New Addresses
CC: m1...@hotmail.com

---

Are you the Quizmaster? Play BrainBattle with a friend now!

[m1bxd]

David et al,

Associated Phone numbers
http://axschema.org/x/contact/phone/billing Billing Phone
http://axschema.org/x/contact/phone/shipping Shipping Phone

Sorry for increasing the digest overhead on this group for people, but
like a lemon I forgot for couriers/accounts - contact telephone
numbers will be required, now I think for the other two address books
there are associated contact numbers?

Cheers Mark

[Rowan Kerr]

On 20-Nov-07, at 11:57 AM, David Fuelling wrote:
> While we're on the topic, it seems like changing the name of the
> address attributes would make them a bit clearer, especially if we
> add a 3rd address line. How about something like the following,
> instead of using the "postalAddressAdditional" naming scheme:

Appending home, home2, and home3 would make those different groups of
values but still for the same base "postalAddress" attribute.

What we might want to do is append to "postalAddress" more like this:
http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddress/street1/home
http://axschema.org/contact/postalAddress/street2/home

Which would more easily extend to the conventional street1, 2, 3 as
well as break down into finer-grained parts like direction, street
type, etc.

So, "postalAddressAdditional" would become "postalAddress/street2"

I think by doing that it would become more like "namePerson" in that
you could simply request "/contact/postalAddress" and get the entire
thing. (Whereas now you have to ask for 2 separate attributes).

The "postalAddress" and "namePerson" URI's have always bugged me a
bit but I'd never really considered changing them before for the sake
of compatibility.

[David Fuelling]

Rowan,

Great suggestion - I've been going back and forth in my head about it, and I think I've finally reach a conclusion (for now).

So, I'm not sure what to think of the format you proposed below ("postalAddress/street1/home", "postalAddress/street1/work", etc) because it seems to be reversing the proper hierarchical context of the address attributes.  Your proposal makes the parent attribute "street2", with a type of "work", when in actuality (IMHO) it seems like the parent should be "work", with a child of "street", "city", etc.

For me, putting these things into English helped me understand things a bit better:  I have a "postal address".  That address is a "work" address, and that "work address" has a "street", "city", etc.  That feels like the proper hierarchy to me.

Your proposed format seems to imply that I have a "postalAddress" -- that "postalAddress" has a street, and that street has a type classification, which is "work".  However, the "street:work" and the "street:home" aren't part of the same postalAddress, despite being listed as such in the attribute definition hierarchy.

What do you think?

david

[Rowan Kerr]

On 4-Dec-07, at 12:50 PM, David Fuelling wrote:
> For me, putting these things into English helped me understand
> things a bit better: I have a "postal address". That address is a
> "work" address, and that "work address" has a "street", "city",
> etc. That feels like the proper hierarchy to me.

I agree, it does feel backwards, I felt the same way when I first saw
it, but I know there is an explanation for the trailing "home",
"work", etc item...

The idea was that you can request a "street1" item from a user
without caring whether it is their home, work, etc. address. And
potentially the user can decide which address they would like to give
you. Moving up the parts of the URI gives you progressively more
generic values.

[David Fuelling]

Hmmm....what happens if I have a "street1/home" and a "street1/business"?  Do you get both, then?  Is that use-case really more prevalent than the "give me your business address" or "give me your home address"? 

Seems like it would be more common to be asking for an address with a particular type, as opposed to "give me a city, and I'll take all kinds".

David