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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv