[Geopriv] Location Coherence (LoCo) Bar BoF

Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> Wed, 17 March 2010 23:05 UTC

Return-Path: <rbarnes@bbn.com>
X-Original-To: geopriv@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: geopriv@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 848213A69AC for <geopriv@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.734
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.734 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.865, BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yZ3tt+hDjUUj for <geopriv@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A23AF3A69A8 for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.89.253.247] (helo=[192.168.1.47]) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <rbarnes@bbn.com>) id 1Ns2JK-000C15-UQ for geopriv@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:05:59 -0400
Message-Id: <C1262791-2C11-48AB-81D8-71A382B77B52@bbn.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
To: geopriv@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:05:58 -0400
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Subject: [Geopriv] Location Coherence (LoCo) Bar BoF
X-BeenThere: geopriv@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Geographic Location/Privacy <geopriv.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv>
List-Post: <mailto:geopriv@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:05:50 -0000

Hey all,

This email is announcing a Bar BoF at the upcoming IETF meeting on the  
topic of "location coherence", to be held somewhere in the vicinity of  
the GEOPRIV meeting, probably during the lunch break on Wednesday, 24  
March.  Since the topic is a little peripheral to GEOPRIV,  I've also  
set up a Google Group for discussions here:
<http://groups.google.com/group/geo-loco>

What I mean by "coherence" is this:

In order for location-based Internet applications to work, there are  
several pieces that need to work together, including
-- Positioning sevices
-- Location protocols
-- Location APIs-- Application protocols that use location
Right now, there are many different implementations out there for each  
layer in this stack, each with its own set of semantics for location  
related concepts -- not just the location that can be expressed (e.g.,  
lat/long/accuracy vs. polygons), but also ancillary ideas like types  
of location (civic vs geodetic) and supporting information like signal  
measurements.

In the spirit of allowing different organizations to add value at  
different levels of this stack, while still maintaining  
interoperability, it would seem like a good idea to have a coherent  
set of semantics for location concepts -- a common data model, if not  
common protocols and APIs.

Topics for discussion could include:
-- How can we map out the space of things that exist today?
-- What sorts of location systems would this effort try to encompass?  
Protocols and/or APIs?  Positioning and/or conveyance?
-- What's the proper venue for this work?  GEOPRIV?  A new IETF WG?  
Somewhere else?

As an example of the sort of thing that might come out of this work, a  
colleague and I put together a partial draft looking at mappings  
between different location protocols:
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doran-geopriv-proto-map-01>

Thanks for taking the time to read through this, and I look forward to  
some useful discussions next week.

Best,
--Richard