ADR47: Combine geography information in one property

[schuur]

No description provided.

[scottgifford]

Hi Gertjan,

I can see how this dual-format (ISO 3166/UN M49) approach is very easy for the PCF supplier, but it seems hard for the PCF consumer.

For the PCF consumer to know whether a PCF applies to their location or not, they will need to have that location in both ISO 3166 and UN M49 formats, since the PCF supplier could use either format (and could in theory change formats between versions). The consumer will either need to collect and store consumption/procurement locations in both formats, or else map between them, which doesn't seem trivial (if it is trivial that's worth saying). This also runs the risk of balkanizing PCFs since some consumers may require a specific location format matching their own and reject PCFs using the other format, reducing interoperability.

It seems like this is the chance for standardization to shine: Pick one format, even if it's not perfect, and you'll reduce the work for all involved in the long-term, even if it requires some one-time conversion in the short-term.

Also I'm interested to know what other background information we know about this? Are ISO 3166 and UN M49 already widely used in other related standards, or elsewhere in the industry? Do our existing implementors use one or the other, or are evenly split between them? M49 was designed for tracking statistical data, is it appropriate for our use case, or widely used for similar use cases? What other location schemes were considered and rejected?

Thanks!