RE: [Geopriv] RE: Review of draft-linsner-geopriv-relativeloc-01.txt

From: Thomson, Martin ^lt;Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
Date: Wed Nov 28 2007 - 23:28:12 EST

I disagree, if this is a coordinate based position it more sensibly fits within a geodetic object. All you need to do is create a new CRS, which can be as informal as you like, providing that everyone understands what it means:

<location-info>
<civicAddress xml:id="base"><country>US</country></civicAddress>
<Point srsName="urn:ietf:some:civic:based:location+ne" newns:base="base">
  <pos>352382</pos>
</Point>
</location-info>

Carl has been saying this for a while.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:hgs@cs.columbia.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, 29 November 2007 3:15 PM
> To: Marc Linsner
> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] RE: Review of draft-linsner-geopriv-relativeloc-
> 01.txt
>
> >
>
> I agree with Marc that treating relative location as a refinement of
> existing (civic) location data makes more sense than creating another
> format. That both geo and civic happen to be able to use relative
> references seems of secondary importance to the user. They primarily
> care whether the base format and measurement origin is civic or geo.
> Adding another two formats just seems to complicate query protocols
> and the number of possibilities. This doesn't preclude re-using tags
> and conventions across both civic and geo formats.
>
> This is in line with the roughly hierarchical nature of civic location
> elements, where higher-level elements can be useful even if a lower-
> level element is ignored. This naturally assumes that one doesn't
> specify something silly like
>
> 352.382 km NE of 123 Main Street
>
>
> (I'm only commenting on this design decision, not on any other aspects
> of the draft or its presentation.)
>
> >
> > 1) Location targets/recipients that do NOT understand relative
> > location,
> > meaning they don't understand the refpt and relpos-? tags, will
> > still be
> > able to utilize the remaining tags included in the civic object.
> > Hence, no
> > harm, no foul.
> >
> > 2) If in fact there is a completely new location type, as you
> > propose, and
> > this new relative location type is the only one available to a host
> > that
> > doesn't understand relative location, location discovery/conveyance
> > does not
> > happen.
> >
> > Conclusion: IMO, adding the proposed tags to the existing document
> > is better
> > than creating a new document.
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:28:12 -0600

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 28 2007 - 23:28:24 EST