- From: <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:45:19 +0700
- To: "Gavin Treadgold" <gt@kestrel.co.nz>
- Cc: public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <c09b00eb0809161845m55c8528av6ccdcc705933dd34@mail.gmail.com>
oh, so location=static position=dynamic was not that wrong after all eh. but they seem to be expressed using different parameters as well On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Gavin Treadgold <gt@kestrel.co.nz> wrote: > > Hi all, > > On 2008-09-12, at 0704, Carl Reed wrote: > > A few emails ago I promised to provide clarification on the use of the >> terms "location" viz "position". Turns out that after reviewing the use of >> these terms in ISO, the OGC, and the IETF there appears to be consistency! >> >> ISO 19112 >> location: identifiable geographic place >> >> ISO 19133 >> position: data type that describes a point or geometry potentially >> occupied by an object or person >> > > From that, I would read that location is something that doesn't move, e.g. > a town - an identifiable geographic place. An object/person has a property > called position that identifies its current location. > > So, anything that can move has a position, and everything that can't move > (and this may include buildings, monuments etc) has a location. A position > of course, can be mapped to a location (e.g. to calculate nearby locations). > > Cheers Gav > > -- Paola Di Maio School of IT www.mfu.ac.th *********************************************
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2008 01:45:55 UTC