Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify requirement for OriginalAddress2 #63

Closed
mheadd opened this issue Sep 16, 2015 · 5 comments
Closed

Clarify requirement for OriginalAddress2 #63

mheadd opened this issue Sep 16, 2015 · 5 comments

Comments

@mheadd
Copy link
Member

mheadd commented Sep 16, 2015

I believe this field was meant to accommodate additional address information for a permit location when such information was stored as part of the permit record. If this data is stored by the jurisdiction, it should be included but if a jurisdiction does not store this information, should it be excluded? Should it be included with a blank value?

The standard should clarify the requirement for this data element.

@jqnatividad
Copy link

To clarify, can we use OriginalAddress2 to store special identifiers like Building Id Number in NYC? Or is there a better place to store alternative entity identifiers used by the jurisdiction? http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/html/bis/glossary.shtml

@mheadd
Copy link
Member Author

mheadd commented Dec 8, 2015

OriginalAddress2 specifically mentions 'street address' information.

While probably not ideal, there is the ExtraFields field...

Is building ID a commonly used descriptor outside of NYC?

@jqnatividad
Copy link

Its an NYC-specific thing. A more generic identifier with wider usage is tax block/lot. Is that universal enough, or goes into Extras as well?

@mheadd
Copy link
Member Author

mheadd commented Dec 8, 2015

This is a good topic for discussion. Let's target the next meeting, and I will try and have someone with insight into other jurisdictions on the call as well. Perhaps this warrants the addition of a specific field.

You want to create a new issue?

@jqnatividad
Copy link

New issue created - #73

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants