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

Re: Location terminology

From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:51:26 +0100
Message-ID: <708552fb0810210351s48e4e683sc70834ff48879895@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
Cc: "Doug Turner" <doug.turner@gmail.com>, public-geolocation@w3.org


On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Thomson, Martin
<Martin.Thomson@andrew.com> wrote:
> I'm not especially attached to one term over the other.  If consensus is that accuracy is sufficiently unambiguous and well-defined, then I'm happy with that.

Great, will stick to 'accuracy', then.

>> >> 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).
>> >>
>> To clarify, you are talking about adding some statement in the spec to
>> say that the API should return the accuracy at the 95% confidence
>> level, right (i.e. you don't mean that we should expose this through
>> the API). If this is the case, I am ok with it.
> You have it.  Exposing confidence through the API would only complicate it.

Ok, I will add that to the spec, change velocity to speed, as you
suggested, and ping the list when I've uploaded the new version.

Received on Tuesday, 21 October 2008 10:52:07 UTC

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