Subject: RE: [Geopriv] PIDF-LO needs a "derived from another form" method

From: "Marc Berryman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:29:17 -0500

Give me the original, unadulterated, raw, un-massaged data, and give it
to me in a way I can tell it is the original data. I think that will be
a rallying call from the majority of the PSAP's. 

The PSAP's know their local area better than anyone else (except maybe
the firemen), they will (probably) not want any helpful service doing
the translation for them, when they know their area and the day-to-day
changes to the local geography.

Marc B

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 4:09 PM
To: Marc Berryman; 'GEOPRIV'
Cc: Cindy Clugy
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] PIDF-LO needs a "derived from another form"
method

I happen to agree with this philosophy, but there are others who think
it is
a helpful service to be able to send both.  If you do get both, I would
want
routing to be done exclusively on the original, whatever form that was,
with
the derived value just excess baggage.  That's why I want to recommend
that
you always send either the original or both, and never only the derived
value.

Generally, I don't think we can stop people from trying to be helpful,
however misguided we may think they are.  What we can do is label what
actually happens, and try to suggest best use of the data that is given.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Berryman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 4:59 PM
To: Brian Rosen; GEOPRIV
Cc: Cindy Clugy
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] PIDF-LO needs a "derived from another form"
method

I am a strong believer in the conversion from a geo to a civic location
should be the sole responsibility of the PSAP. No other authority,
agency, or agent should be allowed to assume that responsibility.

I have seen too many times in the Phase II world (bad analogy, but it
illustrates a point) where the civic location "selected" for the geo was
incorrect and caused a delayed response.

>From the PSAP, the transformation must remain at the PSAP.

Marc B

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Brian Rosen
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 1:33 PM
To: 'GEOPRIV'
Subject: [Geopriv] PIDF-LO needs a "derived from another form" method

In draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo-03, there is a "method" parameter that
describes how the location was determined.  Although I don't like the
whole
idea, it seems clear that many folks want to allow transformations
between
civic and geo, and sending both forms in one tuple.  If we do that, then
the
method should be "derived" or something like it, indicating that the
location data was not determined originally by that method, but some
transformation has been applied to it.  This needs another registered
value.

I would like text that says, "If location is provided with method
'derived',
the original version of the data, with the method actually used to
determine
it SHOULD also be provided".

Brian

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:01:47 -0700

>changes to the local geography.

Please remember that PIDF-LO will be used in many contexts outside
emergency services; having a mechanism that fits those contexts need
not impact the emergency service context at all. The transformation
method may well end up being more prominent in those use cases than
in emergency services.

			regards,
				Ted