Re: [Ecrit] RE: [Geopriv] specifying holes in polygons

From: Henning Schulzrinne ^lt;hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Mon Feb 12 2007 - 08:40:32 EST

Maybe this leads to a slightly different approach. Rather than
targeting PIDF-LO as only a means of specifying locations for
presentities, another view is that the profile document enumerates
and describes standard representations for geographic shapes in
GEOPRIV/IETF-geo related work.

My fear is that the donut is not just useful for LoST but for other
applications outside that protocol. Thus, rather than having each
protocol specify GML subsets, it seems useful to gather them in a
protocol-neutral place.

Even for PIDF-LO, one could, with a bit of a stretch of the
imagination, imagine a use for donuts, say, for a GPS-game or
geocaching where the hint is "I'm somewhere on the lake front, but
not including the water itself".

Henning

On Feb 12, 2007, at 7:32 AM, Marc Berryman wrote:

> I have though about this over the weekend and must agree with James
> (in
> part anyway). I can not think of a scenario where one would need to
> pass
> a polygon with a hole (or doughnut) in it as part of a PIDF-LO.
>
> There are many cases where the information used to route the PIDF-LO
> must be able to support polygons with holes, but not the actual
> information within the PIDF-LO.
>
> Marc B
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Winterbottom, James [mailto:James.Winterbottom@andrew.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 3:20 PM
> To: Hannes Tschofenig
> Cc: GEOPRIV WG; ECRIT; Henning Schulzrinne
> Subject: RE: [Ecrit] RE: [Geopriv] specifying holes in polygons
>
> Hi Hannes,
>
> But the general flow of the PIDF-LO profile document is how to
> craft and
> use a PIDF-LO to represent your location, and also applies to the
> emergency shape section. The emergency shape section basically says be
> careful because not all shapes may be acceptable for emergency service
> applications in all areas.
>
> I guess I don't see a PIDF-LO containing a polygon that requires a
> hole
> in it, and that is my reasoning for suggesting that PIDF-LO profile is
> not a good fit for this discussion.
>
> Cheers
> James
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net]
>> Sent: Monday, 12 February 2007 8:04 AM
>> To: Winterbottom, James
>> Cc: Henning Schulzrinne; GEOPRIV WG; Carl Reed OGC Account; ECRIT
>> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] RE: [Geopriv] specifying holes in polygons
>>
>> Hi James,
>>
>> the PIDF-LO Profile document contains a section about shapes relevant
>> for emergency services.
>> I wonder why it does not fit in there.
>>
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>>
>> Winterbottom, James wrote:
>>> I thought about this, but I can't see a need for a hole is
> specifying
>>> one's own location. I do however see a need, and other have been
> vocal
>>> on this, for specifying a hole in a service boundary. I thought that
>>> Henning's document was describing the format for data and how
> service
>>> boundaries are propagated throughout the network. If it isn't then I
>>> agree with Henning, and another home would be good. If it is, then I
>>> think a section at the end of Henning's document would be a good
> home.
>>>
>>> I think just saying "take a look at GML" is a not a good idea.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> James
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net]
>>>> Sent: Monday, 12 February 2007 7:00 AM
>>>> To: Henning Schulzrinne
>>>> Cc: Winterbottom, James; GEOPRIV WG; Carl Reed OGC Account; ECRIT
>>>> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] RE: [Geopriv] specifying holes in polygons
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we should also add it to the PIDF-LO profile document.
>>>> It would fit in there.
>>>>
>>>> Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since this isn't really specifically about LoST, I'm not sure we
>>>>>
>>> need
>>>
>>>>> to cover that in that particular spec. It is probably worth
>>>>>
>>> mentioning
>>>
>>>>> that this is possible, but normative descriptions of the GML would
>>>>> presumably be elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 11, 2007, at 4:43 AM, Winterbottom, James wrote:
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>> ------------------------
>>> 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]
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> ------------------------
> 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
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:40:32 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 12 2007 - 08:40:41 EST