Re: [Geopriv] Proposal to change the way we describe interiorspaces in PIDF-LO
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Geopriv] Proposal to change the way we describe interiorspaces in PIDF-LO
Good answer
Marc B
----- Original Message -----
From: geopriv-bounces at ietf.org <geopriv-bounces at ietf.org>
To: Gabor.Bajko at nokia.com <Gabor.Bajko at nokia.com>; Winterbottom, James <James.Winterbottom at andrew.com>; mlinsner at cisco.com <mlinsner at cisco.com>; br at brianrosen.net <br at brianrosen.net>; geopriv at ietf.org <geopriv at ietf.org>
Sent: Sun Mar 29 19:46:10 2009
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Proposal to change the way we describe interiorspaces in PIDF-LO
GIS?
-----Original Message-----
From: geopriv-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces at ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Gabor.Bajko at nokia.com
Sent: Monday, 30 March 2009 6:31 AM
To: Winterbottom, James; mlinsner at cisco.com; br at brianrosen.net;
geopriv at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Proposal to change the way we describe interior
spaces in PIDF-LO
There we are again.
Ok, call it FIS (floorplan information server). There are already such
databases out there in the market, I don't know if they have a name yet.
- gabor
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Winterbottom, James [mailto:James.Winterbottom at andrew.com]
>Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 12:17 PM
>To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/MtView); mlinsner at cisco.com;
>br at brianrosen.net; geopriv at ietf.org
>Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Proposal to change the way we describe
interior
>spaces in PIDF-LO
>
>The LIS does not serve out floorplans, the LIS only serves out
locations.
>If you want to render that onto some local application display that
is
>fine, but it is not the role of the LIS to do that or to supply the
floor
>plan they come from somewhere else. These are not functions that we
>should conflate.
>
>Cheers
>James
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: geopriv-bounces at ietf.org on behalf of Gabor.Bajko at nokia.com
>Sent: Sun 3/29/2009 12:40 PM
>To: mlinsner at cisco.com; br at brianrosen.net; geopriv at ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Proposal to change the way we describe
interior
>spaces in PIDF-LO
>
>I also believe what Brian suggests is the right way to go. The LIS
would
>have floorplans in vector format (SVG, or GIS-friendly GDF) with the
INT
>name/value subelements as tags.
>
>The way if goes today is that the client device identifies the
building
>and the floor, accesses LIS and downloads the corresponding
floorplan.
>The floorplan is then displayed with whatever tags it was created. In
>language sensitive regions, the LIS could contain eg an English and a
>French floorplan, and the client device would download the one with
its
>preferred language tags. There is no need to register anything, not
even
>any guidance necessary.
>
>- gabor
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: geopriv-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces at ietf.org]
On
> >Behalf Of ext Marc Linsner
> >Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 2:38 PM
> >To: Brian Rosen; 'GEOPRIV'
> >Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Proposal to change the way we describe
interior
> >spaces in PIDF-LO
> >
> >Did you 'consulted experts' suggest that tools that deal with
location
> >should be void of tags?
> >
> >All I'm saying is the tags should be built into the tools out of
the
>box,
> >customers shouldn't have to add them. I don't think you'll get
that
> >without
> >a registry of the tags that vendors can look at when designing the
>tools.
> >Although I believe we could provide guidance on their usage (copy
> >Webster's?), the meaning of the tag is locally significant.
> >
> >-Marc-
> >
> >
> >On 3/27/09 5:22 PM, "Brian Rosen" <br at brianrosen.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm telling you that I have consulted experts who have looked
into
>this
> >very
> >> problem and concluded that there is no common understanding, and
> >forcing one
> >> is not possible except in centrally planned environments.
> >>
> >> There is no common understanding of what "room" means.
> >> Is a hallway a room?
> >>
> >> There is no common understanding of what "floor" means.
> >>
> >> There is no common understanding of what "building" means
> >>
> >> Brian
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner at cisco.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 5:12 PM
> >> To: Brian Rosen; 'GEOPRIV'
> >> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Proposal to change the way we describe
>interior
> >> spaces in PIDF-LO
> >>
> >> Brian,
> >>
> >> Wouldn't you agree that the provider of the LIS (Cisco) and
provider
>of
> >the
> >> floor plans (using AutoCAD) should have a common understanding
of
> >'seat',
> >> 'cubicle', 'room', etc.? Hence, you need a registry of those
tags.
> >>
> >> You are asking for all the tools to be customized by each and
every
> >building
> >> admin (add each tag to each tool). Sure, some admins may not
>utilize
> >> 'cubicle', but it should be in both the LIS and AutoCAD if they
>decide
> >to
> >> use it.
> >>
> >> Building management/energy controllers are now looking at
GeoPriv
> >location
> >> to use in their tools. Yeah, the building admin and network
admin
>will
> >> agree on a set of tags for their environment, but all the tags
>should
> >be
> >> supported in the tools from the various vendors without
requiring
>the
> >> customer to add them to each and every tool. That stuff comes
from
>a
> >> 'standards-based-registry'.
> >>
> >> -Marc-
> >>
> >>
> >> On 3/27/09 4:49 PM, "Brian Rosen" <br at brianrosen.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I propose no registry. The names are only locally significant.
> >> Commonality
> >>> of vendors is not the issue, the issue is commonality of
building
> >>> designators.
> >>>
> >>> With civic, you are constrained to what the signage and
floorplans
>say
> >the
> >>> space is called. You don't need interoperability of the tags.
You
> >only
> >>> need the address to be consistent with its floorplans and
signage.
> >There
> >> is
> >>> no systematic way to classify the components. That is the
problem.
> >>>
> >>> Brian
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: geopriv-bounces at ietf.org
[mailto:geopriv-bounces at ietf.org] On
> >Behalf
> >>> Of Marc Linsner
> >>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:42 PM
> >>> To: Rosen, Brian; GEOPRIV
> >>> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Proposal to change the way we describe
>interior
> >>> spaces in PIDF-LO
> >>>
> >>> Brian,
> >>>
> >>> I/we thought about this and concluded that regardless of where
you
>do
> >it,
> >>> you still have to register all the tags in order to provide
> >> interoperability
> >>> amongst vendors. So I think this idea is simply pushing the
>registry
> >off
> >> to
> >>> someone/something else. Yes, the interior tags you're referring
to
>are
> >>> locally significant, but there are still multiple vendors in
that
> >space.
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, I do foresee the civic location tag set increasing, but
so?,
>it
> >just
> >>> doesn't matter. I'd rather have a complete registry of all
tags
>for
> >those
> >>> that chose to support them than unregistered tags and people
>guessing
> >> about
> >>> their usage.
> >>>
> >>> -Marc-
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 3/25/09 8:42 PM, "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen at neustar.biz>
wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In RFC5139, we defined a significant number of elements that
are
>used
> >to
> >>>> describe civic location within an addressable structure.
Those
> >include
> >>>> BLD, UNIT, ROOM and SEAT. In discussing PIDF with various
>experts, I
> >>>> have come to the conclusion that we have made a mistake: too
many
> >>>> structures don't use the Building/Unit/Room/Seat arrangement.
A
>good
> >>>> example is an airport, which commonly uses a
>Terminal/Concourse/Gate
> >>>> arrangement.
> >>>>
> >>>> While we can always use the mechanisms similar to those the
> >Austrian's
> >>>> propose to force fit interior location elements into the
available
> >>>> fields, I think we should change the mechanism. Rather than
use
> >>>> BLD/UNIT/ROOM/SEAT...., I propose we create a new element
called
> >"INT"
> >>>> that can appear multiple times. INT has name/value
subelements.
>The
> >>>> order of INTs matters. This allows Building/Unit/Room/Seat,
but
>also
> >>>> allows Terminal/Coucourse/Gate.
> >>>>
> >>>> So
> >>>> ...
> >>>> <INT nam="Terminal" val="1"/>
> >>>> <INT nam="Concourse" val="A"/>
> >>>> <INT nam="Gate" val="22"/>
> >>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Implementation would be like we handled street name: add the
>fields,
> >and
> >>>> recommend they be used rather than BLD/UNIT/FLR/ROOM/SEAT
> >>>>
> >>>> Brian
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Geopriv mailing list
> >>>> Geopriv at ietf.org
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Geopriv mailing list
> >>> Geopriv at ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Geopriv mailing list
> >> Geopriv at ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Geopriv mailing list
> >Geopriv at ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>_______________________________________________
>Geopriv mailing list
>Geopriv at ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>-----------------------
>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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
