Subject: [Geopriv] comments on draft-linsner-geopriv-relativeloc-02

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:43:38 -0500

Hi Marc,

The last I had heard of this concept you had elected to go away and do
it in a private namespace, so I am a little surprised to see it
resurface. My comments on this draft are as follows.

1) It is still unclear why this need to implemented as fields in a civic
location object when it has been pointed out repeatedly that the
relative component is:
	a) applicable to geodetic coordinates as much as it is a civic
location
	b) and offset of, not an integral part of the base location

The concept is therefore best implemented as a compound location
consisting of a reference and an extent. Both Hannes and I have shown
how this can be done in a sensible fashion that does not involve
conflating the existing civic form. Without a very sound argument I can
see no reason to blend the civic and relative forms into a single object
that precludes the use of a geodetic reference point.

2) You have a field RESLPOS-UOW I am guessing that this is supposed to
be UOM. I would strongly recommend that use the measurement URIs defined
by the OGC, rather than an enumerated token.

3) Section 5 is most confusing. You can't just extend the schema in the
fashion that you are trying to do. You need to create a new namespace,
and you can do this in one of two ways.
	a) You create a new namespace just for the refer elements, or
	b) You create a new namespace, extending the existing schema and
include your new elements.
	Either way it has to have a new namespace and you will need an
example showing show how to use it.

Cheers
James

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: Marc Linsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:10:20 -0400

James,

> b) and offset of, not an integral part of the base location

The users of the civic relative location information believe it is part of
the civic location as the resulting location is within the boundary defined
by the civic address.  I attempted to make that point clearer in this new
version of the draft.

Your suggestion of designing a compound location may in fact be the best
approach when the resultant location is not contained with the boundary
describing the reference point (the civic location in this case).

> that precludes the use of a geodetic reference point.

Can you offer technical reasons why extending the civic location document is
bad?  (As in breaking a protocol/privacy/security)

Nothing precludes anyone from adding relative location to geo, or creating
the new relative location type you are suggesting.  It's simply that in this
context, having the information contained within the civic document best
fits the use case, per the users.

> by the OGC, rather than an enumerated token.

Will fix in the next version.

> example showing show how to use it.

Will fix in a future version.

-Marc-