Subject: [Geopriv] geopriv-policy

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 10:02:17 -0700

-geopriv-policy states:

   The <location> element containing the information for the geodetic
   location profile evaluates to TRUE if the current location of the
   Target is within the described location.

We have had a question in AD review that I believe we need to resolve:

   4.1: what does "within" mean here - does overlapping count or not?
   Seems like that could be made more precise, but maybe its defined
   elsewhere in which case a reference to the relevant section of the
   relevant RFC would be good. I think that's clarified later, but
   be good to be clear here too.

The proposed resolution is to add the word "completely"  (i.e.,
"completely within") so that this requires a complete enclosure of the
Target location.

Are there any objections to this clarification?  I would like to
submit a revised draft before the end of the week.

--Martin

---

From: "Carl Reed" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 11:07:48 -0600

Martin -

Perhaps use the definition as defined in ISO 19107 and SQL-MM spatial 
extensions and used in multiple OGC and ISO standards, such as Simple 
Features, which is implemented in all commercial and open source RDBMs'. 
There are very specific mathematics to define "within" and other spatial 
operators. The mathematics and definitions derive from the seminal 
Egenhofer-Herring paper of 1964: Categorizing binary topological relations 
between regions, lines, and points in geographic databases.

I will provide the definition a bit later. Off to a meeting.

Carl

-----Original Message----- 
From: Martin Thomson
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 11:02 AM
To: GEOPRIV WG
Subject: [Geopriv] geopriv-policy

-geopriv-policy states:

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

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 10:51:40 -0700

Yes, this is far more complex than this simple statement implies.  The
decision implies that there would result in some variation in how
implementations evaluate policy based on this condition.  The
alternative is to make a more precise definition. Making that
definition more precise is non-trivial and would delay this work,
probably significantly.

--Martin

On 1 August 2012 10:07, Carl Reed <[email-masked]> wrote:
> -----Original Message----- From: Martin Thomson

---

From: "Carl Reed" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:26:40 -0600

Martin -

The following is the definition of "within" as used in SQL MM, the OGC and ISO. Precise but easy to understand.

Cheers

-----Original Message----- 
From: Martin Thomson 
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 11:51 AM 
To: Carl Reed 
Cc: GEOPRIV WG 
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Geopriv-policy 

--Martin

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:45:44 -0700

I have uploaded a revision of the draft that addresses this issue.

Changes:
 - refer to OGC 06-103r4 for definition of "within"
 - update GML reference to 3.1.1 (in line with other geopriv drafts)

I believe that this resolves all outstanding issues.

--Martin

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:54:16 -0500

All the discusses are cleared. I'm moving this into the RFC Editor queue.
Watch for it's approval announcement soon.

RjS