GEOPRIV K. Wolf
Internet-Draft A. Mayrhofer
Expires: April 30, 2009 nic.at
Oct 27, 2008
Considerations for Civic Addresses in PIDF-LO
draft-ietf-geopriv-civic-address-recommendations-00
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2009.
Abstract
This document provides a guideline for creating civic address
consideration documents for individual countries, as required by RFC
4776. Since civic addresses may have a different format in
individual countries, such address considerations are necessary in
order to map the civic address fields to the PIDF Location Object
(PIDF-LO) elements.
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Specifying PIDF-LO Element Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Country Subdivisions A1-A6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Road and Street Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. House Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.5. Local Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.6. Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.7. Address Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.8. Other Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Austria Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Civic Address Format in Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Sample Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3. Address Codes in Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4. Austrian Addresses in PIDF-LO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4.1. Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4.2. Country Subdivisions A1-A6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4.3. A4 Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.4.4. A5 Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.4.5. Road and Street Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.4.6. House Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.4.7. Local Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.4.8. Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.4.9. Additional Code Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.4.10. Other Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.4.11. Elements not to be used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.5. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. Security & Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 27
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
1. Introduction
The "Presence Information Data Format Location Object" (PIDF-LO)
[RFC4119] is an an object format for carrying geographical
information on the Internet. PIDF-LO can be used to carry civic
address information, and supports a range of "civic address types"
(CATypes) to describe individual attributes of an civic address (see
Section 2.2.1 of RFC 4119 and Section 3.1 of RFC 5139, the revised
set of CATypes).
In many use cases, PIDF-LOs are populated with data from long-
established sources, like postal or governmental building registers,
line information databases and yellow / white pages of infrastructure
providers, or official residents registers. The structure and format
of data from these sources is almost always different from PIDF-LO's
CAtypes definition - additionally, structure and format of those
sources differs from country to country.
To make use of such existing data sources, instructions for
transposing such data into PIDF-LO format (element mapping) is
required. Preferrably, those mapping operations are reversable, so
that location receipients like public safety answering points (PSAPs)
can reconcile such PIDF-LOs with the original data source.
Additionally, for any data source just a single mapping should exist
in order to reduce the risk of ambiguous interpretation.
Therefore, civic address considerations are necessary for individual
countries to ensure uniform usage of PIDF-LO elements. RFC 4776
explicitly asks for such documents. This guideline aims to support
the creation of such civic address considerations. For some
countries RFC4776 already has some considerations on the
administrative sub-divisions in Section 3.4. Note that these
examples are not compliant to RFC 5139 [RFC5139], since the A6
element is not used for street names any more.
This guideline document is based on the experience of writing such a
civic address considerations document for Austria. Since there were
some difficulties when trying to define a mapping for Austrian civic
address fields to PIDF-LO, this document summarizes important
experience and issues to consider. Even though every country has
it's own address format and therefore other problems will occur, this
guideline should help to identify difficulties. As examples,
Austrian addresses are used.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. Requirements
The following requirements apply to defining address mapping
considerations:
o For any data source, all elements must be considered (even if some
of those fields are to be left out of the mapping, the document
must describe that).
o Any CAtype field registered by the time the document is produced
must be considered, and if it is not being used, that fact must be
mentioned. In case the set of CAtypes is revised by the IETF, the
address consideration document should be updated. Until then, the
old mapping procedure must be used.
o Address mappings should be reversible, so that location recepients
can identify the original records if they have access to the
original source
o For any element used, at least one example must be provided.
4. Specifying PIDF-LO Element Usage
The purpose of the civic address consideration document for an
individual country is to specify the list of PIDF-LO elements to be
used, and the mapping between these elements and the fields of the
respective local data source.
The motivation for such a civic address consideration is to ensure
interoperability. Location recipients certainly want to rely on
finding civic address parts in defined elements of PIDF-LO for
further processing. Especially when it comes to emergency calling,
location information is a critical data where misinterpretation has
to be avoided. Therefore, a consistent mapping scheme is required.
Since it is not possible to have global PIDF-LO elements which can be
unambiguously used in every country in the world, the mapping must be
defined on an national level. It has to be ensured, that the mapping
is used for all civic addresses in this country.
Is is important to identify the civic address fields that can be
mapped directly to the corresponding PIDF-LO elements and which civic
address parts need special consideration. PIDF-LO elements that are
not needed in a specific country, can simply be omitted. The civic
address consideration document has to specify clearly that those
elements must not be used for representing civic addresses in this
country.
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
Even though the list of CAtypes could be extended, it is no feasible
to add new elements for any new field in any data source in any
country. Therefore, unless new CAtypes are specified by the IETF,
just the existing elements can be used. That leaves the following
two options in case the CAtypes do not provide a perfect fit for
local civic address data (especially in case the local data contains
more fields than PIDF-LO provides):
1. Concatenate several civic address fields into a single PIDF-LO
element (define delimiters if applicable and make sure the
separate civic address parts can be retrieved again)
2. Use a PIDF-LO element that is unused so far
All existing civic address parts must find a place in the PIDF-LO.
Even exotic addresses, that might be very rare, must be considered.
Civic addresses can be very complex in some countries. So it is very
important to identify the data source that is representing all the
possible civic addresses in a country. Perhaps this database is
maintained by a governmental company, by an authority, or the post.
Moreover, it is important, that this data format is accepted by
Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) operators and they have access
to the data source. Even PSAPs within a country may be organized
differently and use different data bases for civic addresses. It is
crucial to define the PIDF-LO mapping in a way that all PSAPs can use
it. It is disireable to have PSAP operators involved in the process
of developing civic address considerations, so that their needs are
especially considered.
Although the mapping is defined in a national way and the actual
meaning of several PIDF-LO elements may not be clear to an outsider,
at least the country element tells in what context this PIDF-LO was
created. In case of emergency calls, a PIDF-LO would just be passed
to a PSAP in the same country as the location generator anyway.
However, in border region there might be exceptions and the PIDF-LO
is sent to a neighboring country. The PIDF-LO can still be passed on
to a PSAP in the right country because of the country element or the
PSAP knows the mapping of the neighbor country.
A consistent mapping is also very important for checking if two
PIDF-LO documents describe the same location. When civic address
fields are put into different PIDF-LO elements, it may be difficult
to recognize two equal addresses.
The following sections discuss individual PIDF-LO elements and
describe what to consider when defining civic address considerations.
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
4.1. Country
The country element must hold the alpha-2 codes from ISO 3166-1
[refs.ISO3166-1] in upper case characters as clarified in Section 3.3
of RFC 5139 [RFC5139].
This element cannot be redefined on a national basis since it
identifies the country itself. This element is used to identify
which national mapping for civic addresses has been used in a
specific PIDF-LO.
Example for Austria: <country>AT</country>
4.2. Country Subdivisions A1-A6
The elements A1 to A6 are used to hold national subdivision
identifiers, with A1 holding the top-level subdivision identifier.
A1 may either contain the second part of ISO 3166-2 [refs.ISO3166-2]
(see section 3.4 of RFC 5139 [RFC5139]), or values as described in
the address consideration document for that country. Elements "A2"
to "A6" may contain additional levels of subdivisions (see section
2.2.1 of RFC 4119).
For A1, an address consideration document for a country should state
whether ISO 3166-2 codes are to be used, alternatively it should
define a list of valid values to be used (for example, subdivision
names). In either case, A1 must not be redefined for any other use
than describing top level subdivisions.
The document should also specify for each of the A2 - A6 elements
whether they are required, optional, or not allowed. For each
element that is required or optional, it should define the set of
valid values, either by listing them, or referring to such a list.
For countries which are already discussed in section 3.4 of RFC 4776,
it is recommended to follow those mappings.
Example for Austria
A1 province (Bundesland)
A2 political district name or identifier (politscher Bezirk)
A3 commune name or identifier (Gemeinde)
A4 village name or identifier (Ortschaft)
A5 cadastral municipality name or identifier (Katastralgemeindename
or Katastralgemeindenummer)
A6 must not be used. For more details see the example in
Section 5.4.2.
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
4.3. Road and Street Names
PIDF-LO contains the following elements related to road names: RD,
RDSEC, RDBR, RDSUBADDR, PRM, POM (section 3.1 and 3.2 of RFC 5139
[RFC5139]) and PRD, POD, STS (section 3.4 of [RFC4776]). Note that
the use of the A6 element for street names is not valid (Section 3.2
of RFC 5139 [RFC5139]).
An address considerations document for a country should specify which
of those nine elements are required, optional or not allowed. If
neccessary, the document may also describe more complicated
dependencies (for example, "RD is optional, but required if any other
road name element is used").
For any required or optional element, it should describe the relation
of those elements to elements of the data source used. If special
considerations apply to certain elements, they should be described.
Also focus on the element STS, the street suffix. It must be assured
that this suffix is used in a consistent way. In case no suffixes
are known in a country or it is common to write the street name and
the suffix together, it is allowed to forbid the usage of the STS
element completely. Suffixes may also be abbreviated. Define the
common abbreviations.
Example for Austria:
RD: street name
All other road elements must not be used, street suffix is already
included in RD element. Street suffixes must not be abbreviated.
4.4. House Numbers
PIDF-LO specifies two elements related to house numbers: "house
number" (HNO, numeric part only) and "house number suffix" (HNS) (see
section 3.4 of RFC 4776). However, in many countries house numbers
have a more complex format. In any case, a clear definition on
mapping national house numbers to PIDF-LO is needed to minimize
confusion potential.
An address consideration document for a country should provide the
following information with regards to house numbers: If the structure
of house numbers in that country fits the HNO/HNS structure, the
document must mandate to use those fields as described in RFC 4776.
If the structure of house numbers does not directly fit into those
two elements, the document must propose rules on how to map origin
data into PIDF-LO elements. Besides HNO and HNS, LOC and BLD could
be considered for carrying house number information.
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
The document should describe whether abbreviations of house number
elements are valid or not. If abbreviations are used, they must be
clearly defined. If the house number consists of more than one
number or multiple prefixes and suffixes may coexist, a delimiter
symbol and a clear rule on how to concatenate all this data into the
HNO and HNS element might be necessary. Whenever concatenating data
into one field, keep in mind that the location recipient might want
to separate the data again.
Example from Austria:
HNO: concatenate all the data elements of Austrian house numbers into
this single PIDF-LO element in a defined order with delimiter symbols
(see Section 5.4.6 for the complete definition).
HNS: not recommended to be used since there may be multiple suffixes
for the different parts of the house number.
4.5. Local Names
PIDF-LO contains three elements to reflect local names: LMK, LOC, NAM
(section 3.4 of RFC 4776). Such local names may be of importance for
the identification of a location, and may either coexist with a valid
civic address or (in some cases) no address may be assigned so that
the local names itself identify the location. In rural regions for
example, a farm name may be more common than a street address to
identify a location. Therefore, local names may either assist in
finding a "street name" type addess, but they might also be the
authoritative (and only) location information.
Address consideration documents for individual countries should state
for each of the LMK, LOC, NAM elements whether they are required,
optional, or not to be used. For any required or optional field, it
should state potential values (source data) for the element. In case
that multiple values for an element may occur, a concatenation /
selection strategy should be described. Concatenation using ";" as
seperator is recommended.
If local name information and "common" address information is both
available and used, the document should discuss the relation between
those two address information types, and expected behaviour of
location receipients.
Example from Austria:
NAM: contains the "Vulgoname" (local name), multiple local names are
separated by a semicolon (if applicable)
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
LMK: contains the farm name (just one name possible) (if applicable)
LOC: can be used without restriction for additional location
information (as per RFC 4119)
The "Vulgoname" is useful to identify the location within its
locality, since official addresses especially in rural regions might
not be well known.
4.6. Floors
PIDF-LO defines the element FLR to hold the floor information, but
does not further specify its content. Section 2.1 of RFC 3825
provides guidance about floor numbering, but is not directly related
to PIDF-LO.
An address consideration document for a country should clearly
specify how to express floors using the FLR element. Following the
above mentioned guidance is recommended, however, local nomenclature
might require a completely different system. The document should
specify whether only numbers, text, or both are allowed in the FLR
element. If there are standard values for certain floors, they
should be listed. Abbreviations should be avoided, unless they are
the primary way of identifying floors.
Example from Austria:
Numbers and text allowed. The first floor (<FLR>1</FLR>) is the
first "full" floor above the floor at street level. The floor at
street level is <FLR>EG</FLR> or <FLR>0</FLR>. There might be
intermediate floors, especially between the floor at street level and
the "first floor". Such intermediate floors have names like
"Mezzanine", "Erster Halbstock" ("first half floor"), "Zweiter
Halbstock" ("second half floor").
4.7. Address Codes
Address codes are available in several countries in different forms
(for estates, buildings or usable units for example). These codes
identify an address record, and can be placed in the ADDCODE element
in PIDF-LO. Address codes can help the location recipient to
determine the location, and to identify the original record in the
data source. Depending on the type of code, the code alone may be
sufficient as location information within a country.
The PIDF-LO country element can be used to identify the name space in
which the address code elements are valid. Countries may have more
than one type of address codes (multiple namespaces), so it might be
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
necessary to choose the code that is most widely accepted (by PSAPs)
or to have identifiers for the different codes.
A PIDF-LO containing just the country and ADDCODE elements might
provide enough information to retrieve a civic address, given the
location recipient has access to the respective source database.
A civic address considerations document for a country should specify
whether and in which applications the use of ADDCODE elements is
allowed. If ADDCODE is used, its relation to the remaining elements
must be clearly stated. If several namespaces for address codes
exist in a country, a mechanism to distinguish the different code
spaces must be described.
Examples from Austria:
Statistik Austria provides 4 codes: Adresscode (AdrCD), Adresssubcode
(AdrsubCD), Objektnummer (ObjNr) and Nutzungseinheitenlaufnummer
(NtzLnr).
The following format should be used:
<ADDCODE>AdrCD=1234567;AdrsubCD=123;ObjNr=2333211;NtzLnr=0001</ADDCODE>
4.8. Other Elements
This section lists all the other PIDF-LO elements, that are not
considered so far.
To specify the location inside a building, the following elements can
be useful:
UNIT
ROOM
SEAT
The following elements are related to postal codes:
PC
PCN
POBOX
To describe the place-type or the building, the following elements
are available:
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
PLC - Place-type (see RFC 4589)
BLD - Building (structure)
The xml:lang attribute should be present in PIDF-LO XML documents.
An address considerations document should specify for any of those
elements whether they are required, optional, or must not be used.
For any element that is required or optional, the semantics of its
contents must be described, if it differs from the PIDF-LO base
documents.
5. Austria Example
The Austrian "Gebaeude- und Wohnungsregistergesetz" (building and
habitation registry law) is the legal basis for the obligation to
provide a registry of civic addresses, buildings and their usable
units (subdivisions of buildings). The registry is operated by
"Statistik Austria GmbH", a fully governmental owned company.
Responsibility for keeping records in the registry up to date is an
obligation to the local administration of the individual townships.
The data format definition for the individual records is publicly
available (data access itself is however restricted). Hence, an
uniform address data base for whole Austria is available.
Unfortunately, Austrian civic addresses use a much more complex
format compared to civic addresses in PIDF-LO. A detailed
description of the Austrian civic address data format is contained in
section Section 5.1.
A guideline of how to use PIDF-LO for Austrian addresses is necessary
in order to avoid misinterpretations. This is especially important
if the PIDF-LO is conveyed during an emergency call to a Public
Safety Answering Point (PSAP). A precise location information is
needed in case of emergency to send out responders without any delay
to the correct location of the caller. If every data-provider uses
its own address mapping to PIDF-LO, confusion and misunderstandings
are bound to happen. However, ideally any PSAP should have full
access to the data by Statistik Austria. PSAPs must be able to rely
that location information is always provided the same way by all
data-providers. To address the idiosyncrasies in Austria, the civic
address elements are discussed subsequently.
5.1. Civic Address Format in Austria
Statistik Austria data describes estates, buildings and usable units
[refs.merkmalskatalog]. On a single estate there may be any number
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
of buildings. Apartment houses that have more than one staircase,
are split up in separate buildings at every staircase. In every
building, there may be several usable units. For example, an
apartment house may have several apartments, counting as separate
usable units. Moreover, one building may have more than one address,
but at least one address. Below, the address elements for estates
(Table 1), buildings (Table 2) and usable units (Table 3) are shown.
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
+-------------------------+-------------------------------+---------+
| Statistik Austria name | Explaination | PIDF-LO |
| | | Element |
+-------------------------+-------------------------------+---------+
| Adresscode | address identifier | ADDCODE |
| | | |
| Gemeindename, | commune name and identifier | A3 |
| Gemeindekennziffer | | |
| | | |
| Ortschaftsname, | village name and identifier | A4 |
| Ortschaftskennziffer | | |
| | | |
| Strassenname, | street name and identifier | RD |
| Strassenkennziffer | | |
| | | |
| Katastralgemeindename, | cadastral municipality and | A5 |
| Katastralgemeindenummer | identifier | |
| | | |
| Hausnummerntext | text in front of the house | HNO |
| | number | |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - 1. Teil - | first part of the house | HNO |
| Nummer | number, numeric | |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - 1. Teil - | first part of the house | HNO |
| Buchstabe | number, character | |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - | links first and Bis part of | HNO |
| Verbindungszeichen Teil | house number | |
| 1 -> Bis | | |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - Bis-Nummer | number of bis part of house | HNO |
| | number | |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - | character of bis part of | HNO |
| Bis-Buchstabe | house number | |
| | | |
| Hausnummernbereich | indicates if all house | HNO |
| | numbers specified or just odd | |
| | or even numbers are stated | |
| | | |
| Postleitzahl | postal code | PC |
| | | |
| Postleitzahlengebiet | postal community code | PCN |
| | | |
| Vulgoname | local name | NAM |
| | | |
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
| Hofname | farm name | LMK |
+-------------------------+-------------------------------+---------+
Table 1: Civic Address Elements for Estates
+------------------------+--------------------------------+---------+
| Statistik Austria name | Explaination | PIDF-LO |
| | | Element |
+------------------------+--------------------------------+---------+
| Adressubcode | address subcode | ADDCODE |
| | | |
| Objektnummer | object code | ADDCODE |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - | links Bis and second part of | HNO |
| Verbindungszeichen | house number | |
| Teil Bis -> Teil 2 | | |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - 2. Teil - | second part of the house | HNO |
| Nummer | number, numeric | |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - 2. Teil - | second part of the house | HNO |
| Buchstabe | number, character | |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - | links second and third part of | HNO |
| Verbindungszeichen | house number | |
| Teil 2-> Teil 3 | | |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - 3. Teil - | third part of the house | HNO |
| Nummer | number, numeric | |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - 3. Teil - | third part of the house | HNO |
| Buchstabe | number, character | |
| | | |
| Gebaeudeunterscheidung | for differentiation of | HNO |
| | buildings, e.g. Maierweg 27 | |
| | Hotel vers. Maierweg 27 | |
| | Appartmenthaus | |
| | | |
+------------------------+--------------------------------+---------+
Table 2: Additional Civic Address Elements for Buildings
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
+-----------------------------+---------------------------+---------+
| Statistik Austria name | Explaination | PIDF-LO |
| | | Element |
+-----------------------------+---------------------------+---------+
| Nutzungseinheitenlaufnummer | usable unit code | ADDCODE |
| | | |
| Tuernummer | door number | HNO |
| | | |
| Topnummer | unit number | HNO |
| | | |
| Lagebeschreibung | for verbal description | HNO |
| | | |
| Lage | describes if the usable | FLR |
| | unit is in the basement, | |
| | mezzanine, attic floor, | |
| | ... (but not the floor | |
| | number) | |
| | | |
| Stockwerk | floor | FLR |
| | | |
+-----------------------------+---------------------------+---------+
Table 3: Additional Civic Address Elements for usable units
Note: "Floors" in Austria (as in most parts of Europe) are counted
differently compared to the US. The "1st floor" in Austria is
actually the floor above the floor at street level (2nd floor in US),
not considering the fact that in old buildings there might be even
more floors between street level and 1st floor, like "mezzanine",
"2nd mezzanine". So, an Austrian "1st floor" could well be the "4th
floor" according to US nomenclature.
According to Statistik Austria [refs.adrwarten], 81.5% of Austrian
addresses are of the simple type Musterstrasse 1 (Musterstrasse is an
example street name). 5% of all addresses have an additional
character, like Musterstrasse 1b. 1% of Austrian addresses look like
Musterstrasse 21A - 23A. For 8% of addresses, an additional separator
is necessary, like Musterstrasse 10 Haus 1 Stiege 2 or Musterstrasse
20 Gruppe A Reihe 1 Parzelle 13 or Musterstrasse 30 Weg 1 Parzelle
10. Very seldom, there are so called special addresses (0.03%), for
example Musterstrasse gegenueber 3a, meaning this address is actually
vis-a-vis of house number 3A. Rather surprisingly, 4.47% of Austrian
addresses contain the identifier of the estate since no house number
is assigned at all, for example: Musterstrasse GNR 1234, or
Musterstrasse GNR .12/4 Kirche (this type of addresses is common for
churches) or a real example in Stockerau: Kolomaniwoerth GNR 1583.
This identifier is stored by Statistik Austria as Hausnummerntext.
Otherwise one could misinterpret this number as a house number, what
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
would be definitely wrong.
5.2. Sample Addresses
In order to clarify the Austrian civic address format, this section
provides some exemplary addresses:
1234 Musterstadt, Hauptstrasse 1a - 5a Block 1b Haus 2c Stiege 1
Postleitzahl: 1234
Stadt: Musterstadt
Strasse: Hauptstrasse
Hausnummer - 1. Teil - Nummer: 1
Hausnummer - 1. Teil - Buchstabe: a
Hausnummer - Verbindungszeichen Teil 1 -> Bis: -
Hausnummer - 2. Teil - Nummer: 5
Hausnummer - 2. Teil - Buchstabe: a
Hausnummer - Verbindungszeichen Teil Bis -> Teil 2: Block
Hausnummer - 2. Teil - Nummer: 1
Hausnummer - 2. Teil - Buchstabe: b
Hausnummer - Verbindungszeichen Teil 2-> Teil 3: Haus
Hausnummer - 3. Teil - Nummer: 2
Hausnummer - 3. Teil - Buchstabe: c
Gebaeudeunterscheidung: Stiege 1
1234 Musterstadt, Musterstrasse 13 Hotel
Postleitzahl: 1234
Stadt: Musterstadt
Strasse: Musterstrasse
Hausnummer - 1. Teil - Nummer: 13
Gebaeudeunterscheidung: Hotel
6020 Innsbruck, Anichstrasse vor 35
Postleitzahl: 6020
Stadt: Innsbruck
Strasse: Anichstrasse
Hausnummerntext: vor ("in front of")
Hausnummer: 35
6173 Oberperfuss, Riedl 3097 (Pfarrkirche)
Postleitzahl: 6173
Stadt: Oberperfuss
Strasse: Riedl
Hausnummerntext: 3097
(since the estate identifier is 81305 3097 where 81305 is the
Katastralgemeindenummer (cadastral municipality) and no house
number is assigned)
Vulgoname: Pfarrkirche
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
5.3. Address Codes in Austria
Statistik Austria registers 4 codes: Adresscode, Adresssubcode,
Objektnummer and the Nutzungseinheitenlaufnummer. The Adresscode (7
digits) is a unique code for an address in Austria. The
Adressregister maps the Adresscode to the civic address. If there is
a building located at an address, there is also an Adresssubcode (3
digits) assigned. Every building at an address has its own
Adresssubcode (assigned sequentially starting with 001, 002, 003 and
so on) in order to distinguish between buildings at the same address.
Furthermore, every building located in Austria has its own unique
code, the Objektnummer (7 digits). This code identifies the building
independent of the Adresscode. That's because addresses are subject
to change while the building may persist. To differ multiple usable
units inside a building, the Nutzungseinheitenlaufnummer (4 digits)
is used. This code is also assigned in sequential order for each
building.
Besides, every address and building is geocoded by Statistik Austria.
Hence, if every PIDF-LO location object would carry data in the
format of Statistik Austria and every PSAP would use the database of
Statistik Austria for mapping, a time saving, definite mapping
without irregularities could be achieved.
Besides these codes, Statistik Austria maintains reference numbers
for communes, localities or streets, to mention just a few.
5.4. Austrian Addresses in PIDF-LO
A good number of Austrian addresses do not fit into the PIDF-LO
format, as described above. So the following subsection define the
mapping procedure.
5.4.1. Country
The country element for Austria must be set to AT, since this is the
ISO 3166-1 [refs.ISO3166-1] alpha-2 code for Austria.
<country>AT</country>
The usage of the ISO 3166 code is demanded by RFC 4119 [RFC4119] and
RFC 5139 [RFC5139] proposes to use upper case characters only.
5.4.2. Country Subdivisions A1-A6
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
A1 province (Bundesland), Section 5.4.2.1
A2 political district name or identifier (politscher Bezirk),
Section 5.4.2.2
A3 commune name or identifier (Gemeinde), Section 5.4.2.3
A4 village name or identifier (Ortschaft), Section 5.4.2.4
A5 cadastral municipality name or identifier (Katastralgemeindename
or Katastralgemeindenummer), Section 5.4.2.5
Element A6 must not be used.
Last, there is an exception to mention concerning the Austrian
capital Vienna (Wien). The city of Vienna is equal to its political
district and even the province is called Vienna. Nevertheless,
Vienna is separated in 23 districts within the same political
district. Consequently, an address in Vienna would look like:
<country>AT</country>
<A1>Wien</A1>
<A2>Wien</A2>
<A3>Wien</A3>
<A4>Favoriten</A4> or <A4>10<A4>
<A5>Inzersdorf Stadt<A5>
The element A4, holding the city division, can hold the name or the
number of the district.
5.4.2.1. A1 Element
As proposed in RFC 5139 [RFC5139], for the PIDF-LO element A1, the
second part of ISO 3166-2 [refs.ISO3166-2] can be used. However, in
Austria it is also common to write out the names of the states.
Table 4 shows the possible values of the A1 element for Austrian
states.
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Bundesland | second part of ISO 3166-2 code |
+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Burgenland | 1 |
| | |
| Kaernten | 2 |
| | |
| Niederoesterreich | 3 |
| | |
| Oberoesterreich | 4 |
| | |
| Salzburg | 5 |
| | |
| Steiermark | 6 |
| | |
| Tirol | 7 |
| | |
| Vorarlberg | 8 |
| | |
| Wien | 9 |
+-------------------+--------------------------------+
Table 4: A1 element format for Austria
5.4.2.2. A2 Element
Names of the Austrian political districts are available at Statistik
Austria [refs.bezirke]. These names, the unique code for the
politcal district or both can be used for the A2 element. If the
content of the A2 elment is numeric, obviously the code is provieded
(there is no political district in Austria with a number in its
name). In case both, the name and the code are provided, they are
seperated by a semicolon, and the name must be listed first.
The district of "Bruck an der Leitha" could be represented by:
<A2>Bruck an der Leitha<A2> or <A2>307</A2> or
<A2>Bruck an der Leitha;307</A2>
5.4.2.3. A3 Element
The element A3 holds the Gemeindename (commune name) or the
identifier of the Gemeinde, or both separated by a semicolon (the
name must be listed first). If the content of the A3 element
consists of a number only, it is obvious that just the identifier is
provided. Statistik Austria maintains a table with the Gemeindenamen
and identifiers [refs.gemeinden], which must be used as the content
for the A3 element, no other spelling is allowed.
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
Sample:
<A3>Neusiedl am See</A3>
or
<A3>10713</A3>
or
<A3>Neusiedl am See;10713</A3>
5.4.3. A4 Element
The element A4 holds the Ortschaftsname (village name), the
Ortschaftskennziffer (the identifier), or both separated by a
semicolon (the name must be listed first). If the content of the A4
element consists of a number only, it is obvious that just the
identifier is provided since there are no Ortschaftsnamen in Austria
which contain a number. Statistik Austria maintains a table with the
Ortschaftsnamen and identifiers [refs.ortschaften], which must be
used as the content for the A4 element, no other spelling is allowed.
Sample:
<A4>Wilfleinsdorf</A4> or <A4>03448</A4> or <A4>Wilfleinsdorf;03448</A4>
5.4.4. A5 Element
The element A5 holds the Katastralgemeindename (cadastral
municipality), the Katastralgemeindekennziffer (the identifier), or
both separated by a semicolon (the name must be listed first). If
the content of the A5 element consists of a number only, it is
obvious that just the identifier is provided since there are no
Katastragemeindenamen in Austria which contain a number.
Sample (Vienna, Fuenfhaus):
<A5>Oberbaumgarten</A5> or <A5>1208</A5> or
<A5>Oberbaumgarten;1208</A5>
5.4.5. Road and Street Names
The PIDF-LO element RD holds the complete street name, including the
street suffix. No abbreviations are allowed. No other elements are
needed for streets and must not be used.
5.4.6. House Numbers
Statistik Austria lists 14 data fields related to the house number of
a building plus another 5 fields for distinction of different usable
units inside a building (including the floor, which has a separate
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
element in PIDF-LO). Unfortunately, PIDF-LO only defines a single
house number element (HNO, numeric part only) and a house number
suffix element (HNS). Therefore, the rules of the HNO element have
to be violated in order to accomodate all data: All house number data
is concatenate into a single HNO element, even though it is expected
to hold numeric part only.
If the location recipient does not need to separate the data elements
again, the house number parts may be simply concatenated with spaces
in between (no spaces between the numeric part of a house number and
its related character). However, if the location recipient needs to
get back the original data, it is necessary to use a semicolon as
delimiter symbol (Austrian house numbers do not contain semicolons).
The house number parts MUST be provided in the order as they are
listed by the Statistik Austria document [refs.merkmalskatalog]. For
user interface representation, the semicolon separated format can be
transformed by replacing semicolons by spaces (multiple spaces should
be combined) and no space should be present between a numeric part of
a house number part and its related character.
It is recommended, not to use the HNS element for Austrian addresses,
since there are addresses that do not have just a single suffix. For
example, the address Lazarettgasse 13A could be mapped by:
<HNO>13</HNO> <HNS>A</HNS>
However, the building at Lazarettgasse has the house number 13A -
13C. Consequently, just the HNO element should be used:
<HNO>13A - 13C</HNO>
And even for addresses with a house number consisting of a single
number and a single prefix, just HNO should be used because of
uniformity:
<HNO>13A</HNO>
Addresses with a house number text would look like:
<HNO>vor 1 - 1A</HNO>
with no HNS element.
The same example with semicolon as delimiter symbol would look like:
<HNO>vor;1;;-;1;A;;;;;;;;;;;</HNO>
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
5.4.7. Local Names
NAM: contains the Vulgoname (local name), multiple local names are
separated by a semicolon (if applicable)
LMK: contains the farm name (just one name possible) (if applicable)
LOC: can be used without restriction for additional location
information (as per RFC 4119)
5.4.8. Floors
The floor element may contain numbers or text describing the floor.
The first floor (<FLR>1</FLR>) is the floor above the floor at street
level. The floor at street level is <FLR>EG</FLR> or <FLR>0</FLR>.
Other floors may have names like mezzanine, for example. The
Statistik Austria data elements Lage and Stockwerk are concatenated
if necessary.
5.4.9. Additional Code Element
The element additional code may be used to hold the codes provided by
Statistik Austria. There is an Adresscode, Adressubcode,
Objektnummer and a Nutzungseinheitenlaufnummer. These unique codes
identify the location. Actually, these codes alone would be enough,
but requires that the location recipient has access to the database
of Statistik Austria.
If the additional code in a PIDF-LO document is going to hold the
codes from Statistik Austria, the following format should be used:
<ADDCODE>AdrCD=1234567;AdrsubCD=123;ObjNr=2333211;NtzLnr=0001</ADDCODE>
It is not necessary to provide all codes, but there are some
restrictions: The Adresssubcode cannot be used without an Adresscode.
More restrictions are definded by Statistik Austria. By setting the
country element to AT (see Section 4.1), indicating an Austrian
address, the Additional Code element is expected to hold codes from
Statistik Austria only. When creating PIDF-LO documents using
address codes by Statistik Austria, the country and ADDCODE elements
are mandatory.
5.4.10. Other Elements
The elements PC and PCN can hold the data form Statistik Austria, the
POBOX can be used if the post assigned a post office box. At least
the PC element should be present.
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
PC: Postleitzahl (postal code)
PCN: Postleitzahlengebiet (postal community name)
POBOX: Postfach
The elements UNIT, ROOM, SEAT, PLC and BLD may be used without
further restriction.
5.4.11. Elements not to be used
A6
STS
HNS
PRD
POD
RDBR
RDSUBBR
PRM
POM
5.5. Example
This section shows an example mapping of an Austrian address mapping
to PIDF-LO element.
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
<?xml version="1.0" lang="de" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"
xmlns:cl="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr"
entity="pres:123@examplehost">
<tuple id="123456">
<status>
<gp:geopriv>
<gp:location-info>
<cl:civicAddress>
<cl:country>AT</country>
<cl:A1>Wien</A1>
<cl:A2>Wien</A2>
<cl:A3>Wien</A3>
<cl:A4>9</A4>
<cl:RD>Lazarettgasse</RD>
<cl:HNO>;13;A;-;13;C;;;;;;;;;;;;</HNO>
<cl:PC>1090<PC>
</cl:civicAddress>
</gp:location-info>
<gp:usage-rules>
<gp:retransmission-allowed>yes</gp:retransmission-allowed>
<gp:retention-expiry>2007-11-10T12:00:00Z</gp:retention-expiry>
</gp:usage-rules>
</gp:geopriv>
</status>
<timestamp>2007-11-09T12:00:00Z</timestamp>
</tuple>
</presence>
6. Security & Privacy Considerations
RFC 4119 contains general security considerations for handling PIDF-
LOs. In addition to that, it has to be considered that data from the
Austrian building and habitation unit registry are generally not
public, so restrictions as imposed on the original data set MUST also
be imposed on the resulting PIDF-LO document.
7. IANA Considerations
At this stage, this document contains no considerations for IANA.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Gregor Jaenin for contributing insights
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
about the Austrian civic address data format.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4119] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object
Format", RFC 4119, December 2005.
[RFC4776] Schulzrinne, H., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses
Configuration Information", RFC 4776, November 2006.
[RFC5139] Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Revised Civic Location
Format for Presence Information Data Format Location
Object (PIDF-LO)", RFC 5139, February 2008.
9.2. Informative References
[refs.adrwarten]
Statistik Austria, "Handbuch Adress-GWR-Online Teil A
Theoretisches Handbuch Kapitel 2 Warten von Adressen im
Adress-GWR-Online", Jan 2005.
[refs.merkmalskatalog]
Statistik Austria, "Handbuch Adress-GWR-Online Teil C
Anhang 2 Merkmalskatalog", Sept 2004.
[refs.ISO3166-1]
International Organization for Standardization, "Codes for
the representation of names of countries and their
subdivisions - Part 1: Country codes", ISO Standard 3166-
1:1997, 1997.
[refs.ISO3166-2]
International Organization for Standardization, "Codes for
the representation of names of countries and their
subdivisions - Part 2: Country subdivision code", ISO
Standard 3166-2:1998, 1998.
[refs.bezirke]
Statistik Austria, "Politische Bezirke, Gebietsstand
2008", Feb 2008.
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
[refs.gemeinden]
Statistik Austria, "Gemeindeliste sortiert nach
Gemeindekennziffer, Gebietsstand 2008", Feb 2008.
[refs.ortschaften]
Statistik Austria, "Gemeinden mit Ortschaften und
Postleitzahlen, Gebietsstand 2008", Feb 2008.
Authors' Addresses
Karl Heinz Wolf
nic.at GmbH
Karlsplatz 1/2/9
Wien A-1010
Austria
Phone: +43 1 5056416 37
Email: karlheinz.wolf@nic.at
URI: http://www.nic.at/
Alexander Mayrhofer
nic.at GmbH
Karlsplatz 1/2/9
Wien A-1010
Austria
Phone: +43 1 5056416 34
Email: alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at
URI: http://www.nic.at/
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations Oct 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 27]
