Subject: [Geopriv] Latest on draft-ietf-geopriv-relative-location-01.txt?

From: Cliff Behrens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:21:55 -0400

All,

Can someone please tell me what the status is of 
/http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-relative-location-01.txt/?  
It seems that the last revised draft was submitted on March 28, but 
there has been no follow-on activity or discussion related to it.

I would be happy to pick-up this thread, if it is proper for me to do 
so, not having any previous involvement with this group.  I will be 
attending the OGC CityGML SWG in Sept., so was hoping to learn more 
about how they are modeling relative location with the objective of 
using some of their thinking to inform the specification of relative 
location in PIDF-LO.  Guess what I am struggling with a bit at the 
moment is how much information is proper for the PIDF-LO, and how much 
should be provided by services referenced in the object.

I guess what still seems most mysterious to me at this point is how (and 
when) a target location is placed in the context of a World Coordinate 
Reference System.  I suppose the map document reference used for this 
could be put in the PIDF-LO by the localization application, assuming 
that all of this was planned in advance.  But I wonder about the case 
where a team must respond to an address for an emergency, so must 
discover whether a map document or BIM exists for it, along with the 
method of localization used (if one exists).  In other words, it seems 
like search of a catalog or registry might be required.  In either case, 
I think that instantiation of a PIDF-LO requires localization and 
contextualization applications that retrieve information and perform 
computations with it, and while these applications are implicit in the 
current draft, I'm not sure that the PIDF-LO as specified facilitates 
this data flow.  Is it others' understanding that the secondary map 
data/metadata would be provided by the localization service?

Then there's that huge "hairball" related to "shapes of uncertainty."  
My feeling on this is that, if you feel the need to include some measure 
of location uncertainty in the PIDF-LO, then you should either provide 
the shape and the location of its boundary for an agreed-on uncertainty 
value (e.g., 5% error), or provide a shape (and the location of its 
boundary) with its uncertainty value. However, if all you are trying to 
convey is that a target is located somewhere within a space bounded by 
well-known building features, e.g., an office, presumably the 
coordinates of the boundary would be derived from a map document, e.g., 
a floorplan or BIM, and these would convey location uncertainty, e.g., I 
am only certain that Joe is in the main conference room but I can't tell 
you exactly where he is in it.

At any rate, I have provided more detailed comments below to 22 
excerpts, referenced by section in the current draft.  I would gladly 
engage others in clarifying these points, and would be happy to talk to 
people at the OGC meetings in Sept. about any questions or outstanding 
issues related to this draft.

Regards,

Cliff Behrens

===============  Comments Follow Below 
===============================================

Section 1

(1)  The reference location can also have dynamic components such as 
velocity.  The relative offset is specified in meters using a Cartesian 
coordinate system.

Does this belong in the object?  If so, should it have orientation (and 
in Cartesian coordinates)?  Does this make sense indoors?

(2)  Applications could use this information to display the relative 
location.  Additional fields allow the map to be oriented and scaled 
correctly.

Shouldn't this be data or metadata either stored with the referenced 
document or in a catalog that references it?

Section 3

(3)  ...and the reference location could specify a point within the 
building from which the offset is measured.

If one were to determine location in this manner, then wouldn't it be 
desirable to also specify how localization was determined and its 
accuracy?  (See localization generator or LG in GML 3.1.1 PIDF-LO Shape 
Application Schema for use by the Internet Engineering Task Force.)

(4)  The baseline location SHOULD be general enough to describe both the 
reference location and the relative location (reference plus offset).  
In particular, ....., etc.

This is kind of murky...a figure would help.

(5)  If the baseline location was expressed as a geodetic location, the 
reference MUST be geodetic.  If the baseline location was expressed as a 
civic address, the reference MUST be a civic.  Baseline and reference 
locations MAY also include dynamic location information [RFC5962].

Seems this constraint is unnecessary if a detailed BIM were obtained for 
a civic address, and then used to determine geodetic locations from BIM 
+ localization.  Why would the baseline location ever change?

(6)  The relative location can be expressed using a point (2- or 
3-dimensional), or a shape that includes uncertainty: circle, sphere, 
ellipse, ellipsoid, polygon, prism or arc-band.  Descriptions of these 
shapes can be found in [RFC5491].

Seems a red-herring if you don't quantify it.  Again, this might be 
determined based on localization technique.

(7)  Optionally, a reference to a 'map' document can be provided.  The 
reference is a URI.

How/when is this association made?

(8)  The document could be an image or dataset that represents a map, 
floorplan or other form.  The type of document the URI points to is 
described as a MIME media type.

Including a CityGML BIM.gml.

(9)  Metadata in the relative location can include the location of the 
reference point in the map as well as an orientation (angle from North) 
and scale to align the document CRS with the WGS-84 CRS.

Again, wouldn't this alignment best be made with metadata stored with 
the referenced document?  If all of this look-up and alignment is driven 
by an application, then can't it also get the metadata for the document 
and use these to align it and locate the reference point in it?

(10)  The document is assumed to be useable by the application receiving 
the PIDF with the relative location to locate the reference point in the 
map.  This document does not describe any mechanisms for displaying or 
manipulating the document other than providing the reference location, 
orientation and scale.

It shouldn't have to.  It should only provide the URI to the application 
which uses the PIDF-LO.

(11)  xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"

This needed for localization or Location Geneator?

(12)  xmlns:ca="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr"

Why is IETF using own specification for civic addresses rather than 
OASIS xNAL standard, as used by OGC?

(13)  xmlns:gs="http://www.opengis.net/pidflo/1.0"

Is all of this still relevant given revisions to this draft?

(14) <rel:map>
<rel:url type="image/png">
http://example.com/location/map.png
</rel:url>
<rel:offset>20. 120.</rel:offset>
<rel:orientation>29.</rel:orientation>
<rel:scale>20. -20.</rel:scale>
</rel:map>

I can well imagine a use case where all of this is discovered through an 
application using civic or geodetic address and knowledge of LG.

Section 4

(15)  Relative location is a shape (point, circle, ellipse...).  The 
shape is defined with a CRS that has a datum defined as the reference 
(which appears as a civic address or geodetic location in the tuple), 
and the shape coordinates as meter offsets North/East of the datum 
measured in meters (with an optional Z offset relative to datum 
altitude).  An optional angle allows the reference CRS be to rotated 
with respect to North.

Datum, baseline location, reference location, relative location...need 
to be more carefully defined and distinguished, along with the 
implications for each when applied to civic and geodetic addresses.  
Isn't "elevation" a better term since it refers to height above geoid 
(or sea level) rather than height above ground?

4.2

(16)  Dynamic location information [RFC5962] in the baseline or 
reference location alters relative coordinate system.  The resulting 
Cartesian coordinate system axes are rotated so that the 'y' axis is 
oriented along the direction described by the <orientation> element.  
The coordinate system also moves as described by the <speed> and 
<heading> elements.

Not sure this makes sense.  Shouldn't the baseline location, at least, 
remain fixed since it may be the only datum stored for a building 
through which one can associate WRS and LCS?

4.9

(17)  Shape data is used to represent regions of uncertainty for the 
reference and relative locations.  Shape data in the reference location 
uses a WGS84 [WGS84] CRS.  Shape data in the relative location uses a 
relative CRS.

This makes little sense unless either (a) an uncertainty value is used 
to compute a shape, or (b) an uncertainty measure is provided for a 
shape.  Otherwise, if a shape is used to provide an approximate location 
for a target, e.g., somewhere in an office room, then presumably a 
floorplan or BIM (with the proper shape and coordinate values) would be 
used to provide the geospatial context for target location.

4.9.2

(18)  A circle or sphere describes a single point with a single 
uncertainty value in meters.

Don't see where uncertainty value is provided in the example below 
(i.e., 4.9.2.1).

4.9.3

(19)  A ellipse or ellipsoid describes a point with an elliptical or 
ellipsoidal uncertainty region.

Why doesn't this shape also have associated with it an uncertainty value 
(like the circle), especially if this is the reason for providing a shape?

4.9.4

(20)  A polygon or prism include a number of points that describe the 
outer boundary of an uncertainty region.

...and what is its value?

4.9.5

(21)  A arc-band describes a region constrained by a range of angles and 
distances from a predetermined point.  This shape can only be provided 
for a two-dimensional CRS.

Why is uncertainty not a property of this shape?

4.10

(22)  Maps can be simple images, vector files, 2-D or 3-D geospatial 
databases, or any other form of representation understood by both the 
sender and recipient.

I would include a BIM, e.g., a CityGML model, in this list of 
representations.  But how is this reference added to the PIDF-LO?  I 
would also like to provide a link to a catalog service that provides a 
map or model for a civic or geodetic location.  The catalog service 
would supply appropriate metadata, e.g., CRS, publication data, datum or 
"baseline location", etc. for the document.

-- 
Clifford Behrens, PhD
Senior Scientist&  Director
Information Analysis
Applied Research
Telcordia Technologies, Inc.
Phone:  732-699-2619
FAX:    732-336-7015
Email:  [email-masked]

---

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:39:18 +0800

Hi Cliff,

Thanks for taking the time to look at this.

On 2011-08-27 at 03:21:55, Cliff Behrens wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-relative-
> location
> -01.txt?  It seems that the last revised draft was submitted on March 
> 28, but there has been no follow-on activity or discussion related to 
> it.

We're still expecting an updated version.
 
> so, not having any previous involvement with this group.  

Please do.  Fresh eyes are always welcome.  And valuable.

> method of localization used (if one exists).

Discovery shouldn't really be necessary - the document includes the means to provide a link (URI) to a map or BIM resource.  We haven't nailed down exactly what it is that is identified by the URI, simply because we haven't seen any clear indications that any one solution is going to be chosen.

> In other words, it seems 
> like search of a catalog or registry might be required. 

I for one, am against the building of a catalogue.  I suspect that such a thing would be outside the IETF's remit.

> In either 
> case, I think that instantiation of a PIDF-LO requires localization 
> and contextualization applications that retrieve information and 
> perform computations with it, and while these applications are 
> implicit in the current draft, I'm not sure that the PIDF-LO as 
> specified facilitates this data flow.  Is it others' understanding 
> that the secondary map data/metadata would be provided by the localization service?

See above - the <map> element provides this capability.  It's crude, sure, but it's at about the level we thought would work.  Anything more complete is also likely to be more complex - and that complexity has to be justified.  We couldn't justify anything more than what we have.  Feel free to disagree.

> My feeling on this is that, if you feel the need to include some 
> measure of location uncertainty in the PIDF-LO, then you should either 
> provide the shape and the location of its boundary for an agreed-on 
> uncertainty value (e.g., 5% error), or provide a shape (and the 
> location of its
> boundary) with its uncertainty value.

We use the term "confidence" when referring to probabilities of that sort.  

The draft already has that capability (the latter).  See the expression of uncertainty regions - and the implied 95% confidence - in RFC 5491.  Those same capabilities are used here.

> However, if all you are trying 
> to convey is that a target is located somewhere within a space bounded 
> by well-known building features, e.g., an office, presumably the 
> coordinates of the boundary would be derived from a map document, 
> e.g., a floorplan or BIM, and these would convey location uncertainty, 
> e.g., I am only certain that Joe is in the main conference room but I 
> can't tell you exactly where he is in it.

How is that distinction important?  Whether I am uncertain about the location or whether you are uncertain about the location ultimately makes little difference if you are the consumer of the location information.

> velocity.  The relative offset is specified in meters using a 
> Cartesian coordinate system.
> 
> Does this belong in the object?  If so, should it have orientation 
> (and in Cartesian coordinates)?  Does this make sense indoors?

Yes.  Depends on your "indoors".  Think of a cruise ship or any other "building" that moves.  It's actually a case where relative location is most useful.

> Shouldn’t this be data or metadata either stored with the referenced 

Catalogue?

Yes, this is metadata, but we don't have the luxury of a consistent and controlled context into which we can reliably place such metadata.  Thus, we populate the object with metadata.  See also: usage rules for location objects, timestamps, method, etc...

> If one were to determine location in this manner, then wouldn’t it be 
> accuracy?  (See localization generator or LG in GML 3.1.1 PIDF-LO 
> Shape Application Schema for use by the Internet Engineering Task
> Force.)

That would be nice - but in order to do so would require restructuring the syntax.  Being able to convey more information about the reference point was not considered important enough to warrant the added complexity.

(As an aside, the idea that you can concisely state _how_ location is generated is - in my opinion - a poor idea.  Whenever someone asks how, either not answering or answering "magic" is the best way to handle it.  With anything more specific, you run the risk of a recipient inferring things - and I've learned that such inferences have a dangerously high probability of being wrong.  For instance, if I tell you that I determined where you are based on the identity of the cell tower you are using, would you infer that the location that I've given you is poor?  Because you'd be wrong occasionally, especially if that cell is a Femtocell.)
 
> (4)  The baseline location SHOULD be general enough to describe both 
> the reference location and the relative location (reference plus 
> offset).

Agreed.

Here's how it works:

Relative Location =  { Baseline, Reference, Relative }

The actual location is (Baseline ∩ Reference) + Relative.

The reason is that old recipients don't understand Reference and Relative and need to only see the Baseline.  Because the (Baseline ∩ Reference) might identify a very specific location - one that is potentially very wrong - we needed to ensure that they only saw something very general.

In practice, this is only really useful for Civic Addresses, where the intersect operation has a hope of working.

> (5)  If the baseline location was expressed as a geodetic location, 
> the reference MUST be geodetic.  If the baseline location was 
> expressed as a civic address, the reference MUST be a civic.  Baseline 
> and reference locations MAY also include dynamic location information [RFC5962].
> 
> Seems this constraint is unnecessary if a detailed BIM were obtained 
> for a civic address, and then used to determine geodetic locations 
> from BIM

Yeah, but in order to have that interoperate, we'd also have to specify which BIM, how that BIM is acquired, etc...  That's a big problem.

Feel free to ignore the MUST if you know better within your application, but please don't expect someone random on the Internet to be able to use the BIM.
 
> (6)  The relative location can be expressed using a point (2- or 3- 
> dimensional), or a shape that includes uncertainty: circle, sphere, 
> Seems a red-herring if you don’t quantify it.  Again, this might be 

Does not parse.  Perhaps it's a nomenclature problem.

> How/when is this association made?

Outside of the confines of a protocol specification, by someone who knows (or works out) that link.
 
> Including a CityGML BIM.gml.

As you please.  As long as you have a MIME media type for your BIM you can use it.

> reference point in the map as well as an orientation (angle from
> North) and scale to align the document CRS with the WGS-84 CRS.
> 
> Again, wouldn’t this alignment best be made with metadata stored with 
> the referenced document?  If all of this look-up and alignment is 
> driven by an application, then can’t it also get the metadata for the 
> document and use these to align it and locate the reference point in 
> it?

Certainly, though JPEG images don't have a standardized metadata framework for expressing the metadata we need.

It might pay to include a statement along the lines of (the referenced document might include metadata that overrides these values).

> (10)  The document is assumed to be useable by the application 
> receiving the PIDF with the relative location to locate the reference 
> point in the map.  This document does not describe any mechanisms for 
> displaying or manipulating the document other than providing the 
> reference location, orientation and scale.
> 
> It shouldn’t have to.  It should only provide the URI to the 
> application which uses the PIDF-LO.

Agreed.  But we'd like to make that very clear.  Clear scope is very important in a specification like this.  People have all sorts of unreasonable expectations.

> This needed for localization or Location Geneator?

RFC 4119 defines this structure. 
 
> OASIS xNAL standard, as used by OGC?

http://www.xkcd.com/927/

> <http://www.opengis.net/pidflo/1.0>
> 

Indeed, still relevant.

> (14)  <rel:map>
...
>       </rel:map>
> 
> I can well imagine a use case where all of this is discovered through 
> an application using civic or geodetic address and knowledge of LG.

Absolutely.  The map is optional.

> Isn’t “elevation” a better term since it refers to height above geoid 

These are terms of art.  There's an expectation that they are understood.  We are fairly careful when defining how the Cartesian space is defined, but if that is not clear enough, please let us know.

And careful with "height above geoid".  We've been stung on that one before.  Not everyone carries an EGM.  We use WGS84, and height above ellipsoid is altitude.

> Not sure this makes sense.  Shouldn’t the baseline location, at least, 

That's only true if the building is stationary, or your reference point is a building.

> reference and relative locations.  Shape data in the reference 
> location uses a WGS84 [WGS84] CRS.  Shape data in the relative 
> location uses a relative CRS.
> 
> shape.  Otherwise, if a shape is used to provide an approximate 
> location for a target, e.g., somewhere in an office room, then 
> presumably a floorplan or BIM (with the proper shape and coordinate
> values) would be used to provide the geospatial context for target 
> location.

RFC 5491 describes the term "shape" as it is used in this context.
 
> Don’t see where uncertainty value is provided in the example below 
> (i.e., 4.9.2.1).

Look for <gs:radius>.
 
> Why doesn’t this shape also have associated with it an uncertainty 
> value (like the circle), especially if this is the reason for 
> providing a shape?

I think that we use very different definitions for uncertainty.  See above.  The same applies to your comments (20, 21).

> representations.

As implied by the statement, you are free to use any map form that you like.

> But how is this reference added to the PIDF-LO?  I 
> would supply appropriate metadata, e.g., CRS, publication data, datum 
> or “baseline location”, etc. for the document.

Is a URI insufficient for this purpose?

Regards,
Martin

> --
> Clifford Behrens, PhD
> Senior Scientist & Director
> Information Analysis
> Applied Research