RE: [Geopriv] RFC 3825 Updates

From: Thomson, Martin ^lt;>
Date: Thu Feb 01 2007 - 22:08:48 EST

You are implying the use of significant figures. This is a common, but not especially precise, means of expressing uncertainty.


I’ve posted this reference previously, but I find that it helps.


You can also find numerous articles on uncertainty in measurement all over the web.




From: Andrew Newton []
Sent: Friday, 2 February 2007 1:59 PM
To: Dawson, Martin
Cc:; Marc Linsner; Thomson, Martin
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] RFC 3825 Updates



On Feb 1, 2007, at 9:49 PM, Dawson, Martin wrote:

There seems little point in providing resolution parameters if all they

mean is that subsequent digits should be interpreted as zero (ignoring

for a moment that the text actually says they could be either one or

zero - meaning the encoding represents a set of points). The sender

could just set them to zero in the encoding in the first place - meaning

the resolution parameters are superfluous.


If you are trying to get me to agree that at this point the argument gets into a matter of taste, then you have succeeded. But then again, I'm not an expert in this field... not even close.


As the argument goes, what does 39.000000000 tell you that 39.0 does not? It tells you that the measurement was 39.000000000 and not 39.000000001.



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.

Geopriv mailing list
Received on Thu, 1 Feb 2007 21:08:48 -0600

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 01 2007 - 22:08:19 EST