Re: [Geopriv] Re: Last Call: 'Location Types Registry' to Proposed Standard

> I think that in order for a vocabulary like this to be useful, it has to 
> fit its purpose. A vocabulary that is made to fit multiple purposes will 
> in the end fit neither - for one recent example, see the discussion 
> between the "mail folks" and the "RTP folks" over the proper 
> registration and meaning of MIME content-types.

I can't prove or disprove that statement, unfortunately. We won't know 
whether the location types will be useful until somebody uses them. I 
suspect that "real" GIS applications will need a far more specialized 
vocabulary, but it turns out that, for example, a proposal for crime 
scene labeling more or less fits into the proposed registered list. (We 
found this out after creating the list.)

Currently, there are two potential customers: RPID and AAA.


> Yes, it does. By implication, a dictionary is for a language, and a 
> language is (among other things) a set of rules on how to put the words 
> together - and it VERY strongly implies that in order to understand a 
> word's meaning, you have to look at its context.

Dictionaries I know generally define the word by itself. Indeed, many of 
the definitions in the document are very close to (English) dictionary 
definitions.


> To illustrate: In the flat case, "restroom, cafe, airport" could be 
> localized as "Toalett, <ukjent sted>, Flyplass" in Norwegian if the 
> application doesn't know the translation of "cafe"; in the hierarchical 
> case, one could imagine "McDonalds, cafe, eating-place, public building, 
> indoors" - it would be OK to localize that as "Spisested" if "cafe" 
> isn't known.

We'll note in the draft that there is no implied hierarchy, except where 
noted. (For example, 'restaurant' is an umbrella term that includes 
'cafe' and 'bar'.)


> 
>>
>>> - whether having a text string alongside it (the "note" above) is a
>>> recommended practice.
>>
>> That's again an RPID issue. Not every protocol using these tokens  will
>> have notes.
> 
> There's no second protocol at the moment, so you have the chance to 
> provide guidance...

Yes: AAA 
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-radius-lo-04.txt)


> Legal wording isn't what I'm looking for. Hints to the reviewer about 
> what the WG considers "common sense" would be helpful.

To better understand what you have in mind, can you give an example? 
There are some obvious things, like:

- not specific to a country
- not a specific company or organization
- well-defined
- widely recognized

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf