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

Hi,

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.

Thanks,
Andrei
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