Serena Coetzee writes in the forum topic: "Semantic interoperability of address information used by European public administrations should support cross-border postal delivery and validation of (physical) addresses against reference data. For the former, the [UPU S42], [CEN1] and [CEN2] standard should be considered, but they are currently not included in the use cases. For the latter, interoperability with [INADR] is essential. The current core location vocabulary is not interoperable with [INADR]. INSPIRE allows multiple values of address fields, but the ISA core vocabulary specification does not. It does not work in many circumstances. For example many UK addresses require two localities."
Is this simply about cardinality? If so, there is a general theme among comments on all vocabularies that all cardinality restrictions should be dropped. Does that solve this issue?
[CEN1] CEN/TS 14142-1:2010, Postal Services - Address databases - Part 1: Components of postal addresses
[CEN2] CEN/TR 14142-2:2010, Postal Services - Address databases - Part 2: Element mapping conventions, template design considerations, address templates and rendition instructions
[INADR] D2.8.I.5 INSPIRE Data Specification on Addresses – Guidelines
[UPU S42] International postal address components and templates – Part A: Conceptual hierarchy and template languages, Universal Postal Union, 2006.