> Martin,
>
> [...] For example, a location value
> assumes the existence of some localization technique,
Gotta pull you up here: a location value is agnostic of how it is determined. How you got it is highly specific, but the value itself is completely divorced from its method of acquisition. <method> says something about that process, but - as I've explained - it's not all that good or reliable in providing usable information.
> [...]
> However, this isn't to say that this grid map is the same document
> that one would want to reference for purpose of determining relative
> location, though the location value provided by localization would be
> useful for finding such a document. But who knows where it is, or
> whether one referenced in a PIDF-LO is actually useful?
Those sorts of decisions are usually accomplished by what might as well be magic. I have some ideas, but from a standardization perspective, they aren't that interesting. Basically read that as an opportunity to provide your own marvelous ideas.
> HTTP content negotiation sounds like a nice idea. I'm less familiar
> with how this actually works. If a catalog is referenced rather than a
> map, does the URI have to be typed to distinguish the difference
> between them to facilitate negotiation?
The URI isn't inherently typed. Content negotiation allows you to negotiate with the authority for the URI over what content they provide you. You can say: "I'd like a CityGML BIM please (maybe with some other stuff)", and they say "here, have a jpeg". Or they actually have something approximating what you want and you can get that.
> > Velocity [...]
> OK...but strikes me as the kind of application-specific complexity you
> caution against below. If velocity, then why not acceleration, etc.?
Velocity was deemed to be valuable, in and of itself. Acceleration was not.
> > The only metadata we currently provide is the "type" attribute of
> > the map [...]
> Other metadata may be important. For example, CityGML BIMS come in
> five levels of detail (LOD) ranging from something as simple as a
> digital terrain model to a detailed, walkable indoor model. Merely
> knowing that a CityGML BIM exists wouldn't be sufficient for deciding
> whether it might be useful if I needed the higher LOD. Even with more
> simple floorplans, it may be useful to know what floor in a building
> is involved.
Other metadata might be better sourced from places that have better knowledge about what metadata is applicable.
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
