search

airsalliance / airs-xml

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/airs-xml
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
3 stars 2 forks source link

Require full hierarchy for GeographicAreaServed #36

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Right now, in GeographicAreaServed, a vendor could put entries like:

<State>California</State>
<County>Los Angeles</County>
<City>Burbank</City>
<ZipCode>91506</ZipCode>

Or simply
<ZipCode>91506</ZipCode>

This could be confusing upon import, and also not clearly indicate, when a zip 
code crosses city/county lines, which side of the line it refers to. Instead, 
why not remove the ambiguity and require the structure as:

<State>California
  <County>Los Angeles
    <City>Burbank
      <ZipCode>91506</ZipCode>
    </City>
  </County>
</State>

If the GeoAreaServed is, say, for the whole county, then do not include all the 
cities and zip codes within it. Just the whole county will do without any lower 
child nodes.

While we're at it, should there be only one GeographicAreaServed node per 
ServiceSite? Or multiple (one for each defined political area)? Either approach 
would be fine, let's pick one though and make it the approved method in the 
schema.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by bleeb...@gmail.com on 9 Dec 2011 at 8:20

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Another opportunity to further clarify the schema here. Some vendors include in 
their exports a text string to represent area served like this (fictitious 
list):

Seminole, Orange, Volusia and Lake Counties

or

Zip codes 32750, 32818, Volusia County and city of Sanford

Clients have confirmed that they have not typed these kinds of entries into a 
text box, rather they have set them up as proper areas served for a variety of 
reasons. So the vendor(s) must be interpreting those areas served into text 
strings like these, which make it much more difficult to process. 

Instead each entry should follow the format as recommended initially in this 
issue (above).

Original comment by bleeb...@gmail.com on 13 Dec 2011 at 6:33

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Rejected in voting process for inclusion in either pending release.

Original comment by e...@ejahn.net on 18 Feb 2012 at 3:21