W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > October 2008

Re: Location terminology

From: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:00:37 -0700
Cc: <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D5E8124E-4E39-4FFA-91D1-101E36ECAB25@gmail.com>
To: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>

i would agree that changing velocity to speed makes sense.

On Oct 16, 2008, at 10:58 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:

> Having read the draft and the use cases, I think that the API--long  
> overdue as it is--takes the correct approach, particularly with  
> regards to its simplicity.
> I was involved in implementing a similar API several years ago;  
> unfortunately, we haven't had the opportunity to follow up on the  
> project.
> To preface my future comments, as a regular participant in IETF  
> discussions on geo-location (in the GEOPRIV working group in  
> particular), my interest is in ensuring that there is a degree of  
> compatibility between the approaches taken in both forums.  The  
> goals of these working groups differ, but I see no need in creating  
> solutions that are in conflict.
> ~~
> I notice that in the recent discussion, the question of correct  
> terminology has come up.  In the interests of uniform terminology  
> across the industry, I'd like to make a few terminology suggestions.
>    readonly attribute double accuracy;
>    readonly attribute double altitudeAccuracy;
> Accuracy is a term that can be very easily misinterpreted.  For a  
> quantitative concept, the term "uncertainty" is preferred.  NIST  
> advises that there are two many potential interpretations for  
> accuracy and they prefer it to be used only for qualitative  
> statements.
>  http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/guidelines/appd.1.html
> In addition, your specification should make some statement about the  
> expected confidence related to this uncertainty.  You will get a  
> number of opinions on the topic: users and application providers  
> will demand the impossible value of 100%, location providers like  
> lower numbers (because it makes the circle look smaller).  I'd  
> recommend picking between 67%, 90% and 95%, which are commonly used  
> values.  The IETF favour 95% (siding with the users and application  
> providers).
>    readonly attribute double heading
>    readonly attribute double velocity
> Using the term "velocity" for a scalar is misleading, since velocity  
> is a vector concept.  The combination of these two values define the  
> velocity.  "speed" would be a more correct term for the scalar.
> Regards,
> Martin
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
Received on Monday, 20 October 2008 02:01:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:50:51 UTC