Re: [Geopriv] RE: draft-jones-radius-geopriv

From: jo walsh ^lt;jo@abduction.org>
Date: Wed Feb 18 2004 - 14:22:02 EST

hello,

> > Given the trivial structure for the
> > basic PIDF privacy information, I'm not convinced that we always need
> > the full generality of a GML object. I'd like to hear a technical,
> > rather than procedural, argument for disallowing that. (In HTTP, the
> > size argument was largely a non-issue.)

we'd like to offer some positive reasons for optionally allowing the
RDFIG namespace for geo:Points with latitude and longitude referenced to
the wgs84 datum;

http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#

<geo:Point>
<geo:lat>31.93333</geo:lat>
<geo:long>115.83333</geo:long>
</geo:Point>

- the WGS84 datum is assumed in the schema so there's no need to send a
datum attribute with each point.
- having lat and long as separate properties arguably makes parsing and
validation easier
- it is trivially extensible with properties from other RDF vocabularies
http://locative.net/etcon2004/packet.html shows a guideline for a simple
'geoannotation' object which uses the FOAF vocabulary[0] to make
assertions about the person or other presentity who annotated that point
in space and time, and the media optionally attached to it.

http://locative.net/etcon/plan.pl?Locative_Packets_To_GML_Servlet shows a
simple rdf/xml -> GML converter for those who really want GML. This was
done at a collaborative mapping workshop at the Emerging Tech conf last
week, at which some of us saw Jon Peterson's talk about geopriv and
presence work, which led us here. thanks.

Jo Walsh, Schuyler Erle

[0] http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/

--
"Common sense won't tell you. We have to tell each other." -DNA
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:22:02 +0000 (GMT)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 18 2004 - 14:25:03 EST