Closed duncandewhurst closed 2 years ago
This sounds fine to me. I do wonder if internationalConnections
is sufficiently unambiguous, but all alternatives I can think of (internationalConnectionDestinations
) are a bit long. A sufficiently detailed description should be fine.
I also think we should tighten up the terminology between this and node.type
, which has a 'borderCrossing' code. Maybe we change 'borderCrossing' to 'internationalConnection' in the node type codelist, and add a reference to the internationalConnections
object in the relevant codelist description?
I think that there might be a difference between a node with international connections and a border crossing as it is currently defined:
The point at which a fibre cable crosses either an international boundary or the coastline of the operator’s country.
Whereas a node with international connections might not be located at the border, like the Nkenda node with the connection to Beni on UETCL's map:
So I am not sure aligning the terminology is a good idea. However, including a reference to internationalConnections
in the description of the 'borderCrossing' code sounds good.
The alpha schema and codelists added in https://github.com/Open-Telecoms-Data/open-fibre-data-standard/pull/101 reflect the latest proposal in this issue.
This issue will remain open against the beta milestone to gather feedback from the alpha consultation.
We've not heard any further feedback on this issue so I'm going to close it for now.
The supply side research surfaced several examples of datasets that include details of the international connections available at nodes:
Some publishers list only the name of the country for each connection and some list more specific locations (regions, cities, towns etc.).
Proposal
Add an
internationalConnections
property toNode
. MakeinternationalConnections
an array ofAddress
objects to allow publishers to disclose locations of varying specificity. Require that.country
is always populated.Example