|
|
Hi Hannes,
But the general flow of the PIDF-LO profile document is how to craft and
use a PIDF-LO to represent your location, and also applies to the
emergency shape section. The emergency shape section basically says be
careful because not all shapes may be acceptable for emergency service
applications in all areas.
I guess I don't see a PIDF-LO containing a polygon that requires a hole
in it, and that is my reasoning for suggesting that PIDF-LO profile is
not a good fit for this discussion.
Cheers
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, 12 February 2007 8:04 AM
> To: Winterbottom, James
> Cc: Henning Schulzrinne; GEOPRIV WG; Carl Reed OGC Account; ECRIT
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] RE: [Geopriv] specifying holes in polygons
>
> Hi James,
>
> the PIDF-LO Profile document contains a section about shapes relevant
> for emergency services.
> I wonder why it does not fit in there.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
> Winterbottom, James wrote:
> > I thought about this, but I can't see a need for a hole is
specifying
> > one's own location. I do however see a need, and other have been
vocal
> > on this, for specifying a hole in a service boundary. I thought that
> > Henning's document was describing the format for data and how
service
> > boundaries are propagated throughout the network. If it isn't then I
> > agree with Henning, and another home would be good. If it is, then I
> > think a section at the end of Henning's document would be a good
home.
> >
> > I think just saying "take a look at GML" is a not a good idea.
> >
> > Cheers
> > James
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@xxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Monday, 12 February 2007 7:00 AM
> >> To: Henning Schulzrinne
> >> Cc: Winterbottom, James; GEOPRIV WG; Carl Reed OGC Account; ECRIT
> >> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] RE: [Geopriv] specifying holes in polygons
> >>
> >> Maybe we should also add it to the PIDF-LO profile document.
> >> It would fit in there.
> >>
> >> Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> >>
> >>> Since this isn't really specifically about LoST, I'm not sure we
> >>>
> > need
> >
> >>> to cover that in that particular spec. It is probably worth
> >>>
> > mentioning
> >
> >>> that this is possible, but normative descriptions of the GML would
> >>> presumably be elsewhere.
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 11, 2007, at 4:43 AM, Winterbottom, James wrote:
> >>>
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------
> > 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]
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
|
|