Closed roefie64 closed 3 years ago
The same could be said about the persons/company name but this could be used to verify/doublecheck. Also the vehicle technical data is not relevant for the evidence but could be used to register the vehicle in the new country.
As mentioned in issue #45,
In the data model provided by ES,
We propose to remove the Address
class and use the address
attribute of the Location
class. The attribute is a
single string with address information mandatory. Such a field is available in Core Location (fullAddress, The complete address written as a string, with or without formatting. Use of this property is recommended as it will not suffer any misunderstandings that might arise through the breaking up of an address into its component parts.)
Ingrid (FIN): the address/location of the owner (and the holder/legal user) is present in the Finnish document. So the relationship in the Finnish data model is between person-address and not vehicle-address. Moving the address as an attribute of the Location class sounds reasonable.
I still do not see the need for Location and Address in the Vehicle registration evidence. The evidence should be that an identified person (Agent in the data model) has registered an identified vehicle. I know that in many countries the address is registered at the Vehicle registration authority but is not kept up to date when a person moves within a country. Providing the registered address in the evidence might lead to problems when a person/organisation provides it's current address.
@roefie64 and @ibodor thanks for your comments. Looking at them, we will propose the registeredLocation
to be optional.
Do we need the address in the VehicleRegistration evidence? The vehicle is registered to a person or a company who has to identify with a unique ID. It would be enough to know that the vehicle was indeed registered to this person/company where it's address is irrelevant.