- From: Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:25:51 +0200
- To: <public-poiwg@w3.org>
- Cc: "Jeon Jonghong" <hollobit@etri.re.kr>, "Matt Womer" <mdw@w3.org>, "Henning Schulzrinne" <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>, "Thomas Wrobel" <darkflame@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <C891C81F.134AD%daniel.appelquist@vodafone.com>
Great to see areas of technical discussion like this already emerging that would fit very well into the scope of the proposed charter. I think this bodes well for future of this working group and should be a signal to the w3c management team to fast track getting this group off the ground while the community engagement is still strong. Dan On 18/08/2010 17:15, "Thomas Wrobel" <darkflame@gmail.com> wrote: > I think I see where your both coming from. Henning was closer to what > I was picturing. > Unfortuntely Ive been away with little time to read in detail whats > been happing. > > I would certainly be very wary of mixing the data up with the critera > (in this case location), that could quickly get very messy imho. > > Would not the first task be merely to establish a generic way to > position *ANY* data? I dont think we need to worry about the type of > data for now. > The such data could be included inline, or a simple link to a remote source. > > So if the generic global task for positioning any data to any *paturn* is; > [criteria]<>[data] > Where data is the contents and criteria is the location (or other > parameters) to specify when/how it should be displayed. > > Now, if we are taking geolocation as the low-hanging fruit subset of > this much more wide task > it would be; > [positioning information]<>[data] > > So this could be specified in all many of ways, either as triplets, or > xml style etc. > We have to just be very clear, that the positioning information could > be, say, a polygon, that in turn specify´s a data property. (say, a > text property of ¨public park¨). But we could also have a positioning > information (say, a simple gps point) that specifies a data that *is* > a polygon. > > In this scenario we would want the specification to allow this > scenario, and not allow for confusion. > > Its also posiable at some point we would want a *volume* to be the > positioning information (say, a building). > While this might not be something to worry specificly about now, I > think separating the data to be positioned from the positioning > criteria would make these possibilitys easier in future. > > Finaly, sorry if Iḿ not as clear as I could be, I have limited time to > form this response so its a little rushed! > > Cheers, > Thomas Wrobel > > > > > > > > On 18 August 2010 15:45, Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu> wrote: >> > >>> >> - Physical Object Identifier : (maybe Recommendations) >>> >> : it's a URI scheme. and it's a unified identifier (and markup) for any >>> physical object in augmented environment(product, person, location ...) >>> >> Poi:UPC.<upcnumber> >>> >> Poi:Geo.<lat>,<lon>[,<alt>][;u=<uncertainty>] >>> >> Poi:tel.<phonenumber> >>> >> Poi:doi.<publishernumber>/<suffix> >>> >> Poi:ufid.<ufid number> >>> >> Poi:epc.<epc code> >>> >> Poi:ean.<ean code> >>> >> Poi:isbn.<isbn number> >>> >> ... >> > >> > We already have geo URI (see RFC 5870) and tel URIs (RFC 3996), so it seems >> unwise to duplicate them. >> > >> > I admit that I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the POI >> description idea. In its most general form, this could include a complete map >> of the US, with all mark-up, duplicating a full GIS system (see OpenGIS). I >> suspect we don't want to go there. To have a chance to succeed, a much more >> narrow first version seems more likely to actually see implementation. There >> has been significant work in the IETF GEOPRIV WG on describing 2d/3d >> polygons, among other simple shapes (arc band, circle, ....), as a subset of >> the OpenGIS effort, which might well hit the 90%-of-likely-usecases mark. >> Similarly, we don't want to re-invent vCal for a full calendaring description >> ("A concert occurs here every Tuesday, except on the 5th Tuesday of the month >> and during the month of July"). >> > >> > To see if we're on the roughly same page, here's a mockup of something I >> see as plausible (without worrying about precise date formats and the like): >> > >> > <expires>May 17, 2011</expires> >> > <when>vCal string [not applicable for the park example]</when> >> > <where>a 2D polygon</where> >> > <what>urn:poi:park</what> >> > <details>Central Park, Manhattan</details> >> > >> > >> > Henning >> > > >
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2010 16:26:29 UTC