Re: [Geopriv] [geopriv] #14: uncertainty specification

I would like to see this included, but suggest that the uncertainty is best left as a parameter. It fits better there. I don't know what you mean by "basic element", but if it's part of the core list of numbers, then that would risk the data from being mistaken for coordinate data (e.g. the 4th dimension).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Richard Barnes
> Sent: Wednesday, 29 July 2009 3:56 PM
> To: trac@localhost.amsl.com
> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] [geopriv] #14: uncertainty specification
>
> > Q) shall the draft specify such uncertainty, or shall it leave that
> to an
> > external specification?
>
> The draft should specify an uncertainty radius in meters, either as a
> basic element or as a parameter.
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv