- From: Carl Reed <creed@opengeospatial.org>
- Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 14:56:06 -0600
- To: <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>, "C H" <craighubleyca@yahoo.com>
- Cc: "public-xg-eiif" <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
There is an ISO standards that defines these terms. Perhaps rather then invent some new definitions, we should consider what has already been defined and accepted. Regards Carl ----- Original Message ----- From: <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> To: "C H" <craighubleyca@yahoo.com> Cc: "Carl Reed" <creed@opengeospatial.org>; "public-xg-eiif" <public-xg-eiif@w3.org> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 9:11 PM Subject: Re: person location vs position > > Maybe you are trying to point to distinction > > location = static > position = dynamic > > so maybe both fields are useful in determining where an affectedPerson > is when they need ES? > > > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:46 PM, <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote: >> Craig >> >> its an interesting discussion, and the scenario is surely more complex >> even >> for missing persons location will be blank >> >> but for person that we know where it is, location is where they need the >> service >> wheter that is their usual location or not, is not important for who >> must deliver >> >> what about >> >> any_darn_location >> >> >> >>> These are recognizably a physical location on the Earth with coordinates >>> but are also clearly distinguished from the actual physical location of >>> the person, body or vehicle. Which we must assume the system will know. >> >> no Craig, we must avoid making assumption. the system might be down at >> any given moment, and person may be able >> to give position using natural language or approximate location etc >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Paola Di Maio >> School of IT >> www.mfu.ac.th >> ********************************************* >> > > > > -- > Paola Di Maio > School of IT > www.mfu.ac.th > ********************************************* >
Received on Sunday, 7 September 2008 16:28:20 UTC