That said, I am working multiple other standards activities related to
indoor/outdoor navigation that have a role in a variety of domains, such as
emergency response.
For example, there is a new activity just beginning titles "Open Floor Plan
Display". From the activity plan:
"Conversations between industry specialists often break down in semantic
frustration for many reasons. A primary reason is the lack of a common
framework and strategic planning to evolve this framework. Secondly,
documentation of building elements and building service performance
requirements has exploded. Which parts of the living documents need to
comply with long term exchange requirements for wide spread re-use?"
The work proposed envisions a next generation 9-1-1 using modern devices and
open exchange languages to depict buildings and alerts in simple,
interoperable formats via lightweight web services. One objective is the
ability to read and pass along sensor alerts before emergencies such as
fires are large enough to be observed by a by-stander phoning in. Data
identities center around building addresses, standard building data
representations, and alert classifications. The work will build on existing
standards and practices as well as previous collaborations between the OGC,
NIST, buildingSMART Alliance, GSA, and other organizations in the AEC
community.
One reason I mention this work is that there are a variety of issues related
to expressing location within a building and then using that information to
say guide first responders.
From the draft-stanley-geopriv-int-ext-00.txt document
"within X meters of the point which is 10 meters south and 15 meters east of
the main elevator on Floor 4"
I understand that perhaps the focus of the document is not on semantics.
That said, how does the application "know" what the main elevator is and
where is is location or what is really meant by Floor 4. Does there need to
be a statement about where the building floorplan information comes from?
Further, what is meant by "south" and "east"? In reference to the cartesian
coordinate system (actually, in the engineering world, these are engineering
coordinate systems), where and how is the metadata about the local CRS
accessed? How does the local CRS related to the real world CRS (such as WGS
84)?
These are the types of questions that the indoor navigation community is
dealing with. For example
http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=35334 is one example.
So, expressing the location of IP enabled devices should probably be in the
context of the larger in-building information domain. This way, location
content provided in an interior extension encoding would "fit" or fuse
directly into a larger common operational picture.
Sorry for the length of this posting, but this is a really important topic.
Regards
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Rosen" <br@brianrosen.net>
To: "Dorothy Stanley" <dstanley1389@gmail.com>; "GEOPRIV" <geopriv@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Interior Location Extensions internet draft available
> Note that this draft builds on my INT draft
> (draft-rosen-geopriv-pidf-interior-00).
>
> The authors of this draft and I have cooperated on this aspect. One of
> the
> requests that these authors have made is that we include a registry of ³N²
> names in the INT draft. While I¹m not too thrilled with that idea, I¹m
> willing to go along if the rest of the work group agrees it will be
> useful.
>
> I think this draft has a lot of merit, and I'd like to see it progress. I
> have had extended discussions with these guys. There is a significant use
> case, they have the right idea of how to solve it, and it works within the
> kinds of systems it's intended to be used with.
>
> I think the syntax proposed is very awkward, and I'd like to propose
> changes.
>
> I think the "Reference Point" this draft defines is a bad idea. I think
> that the INTs should define the reference point, and the offset should be
> relative to that.
>
> In the examples used, I think it might be expressed as:
> ...
> <HNO>123</HNO>
> <INT N="Suite">100</INT>
> <INT N="Door">Front</INT>
> And then something like
> <POINT_OFFSET>
> <X>100</X>
> <Y>200</Y>
> </POINT_OFFSET>
>
> At this time, however, I think the syntax issues are not important and the
> basic idea is.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> On 10/19/09 3:51 PM, "Dorothy Stanley" <dstanley1389@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> An internet draft for Interior Location Extensions is now posted, see
>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-stanley-geopriv-int-ext-00.txt .
>>
>> This document supports the request for Location by reference
>> extensions in 11-09-0718-01-000v-liaison-request-to-ietf-geopriv.doc,
>> (available at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/trac/wiki ).
>> Extensions to existing Civic definitions include reference point, offset
>> and
>> shape
>> components.
>>
>> I've asked Alissa & Richard for time to present this in Hiroshima.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Dorothy Stanley
>>
>>
>> ------------------------
>> Dorothy Stanley
>> Aruba Networks
>> dstanley@arubanetworks.com <mailto:dstanley@arubanetworks.com>
>> 630-363-1389
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
