GEOPRIV PIDF-LO Usage Clarification, Considerations and Recommendations
draft-winterbottom-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-00
Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Author | James Winterbottom | ||
Last updated | 2005-02-15 | ||
RFC stream | (None) | ||
Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
The GeoPriv PIDF-LO specification provides a flexible and versatile means to represent location information. There are, however, circumstances that arise when information needs to be constrained in how it is represented so that the number of options that need to be implemented in order to make use of it are reduced. There is growing interest in being able to use location information contained in a PIDF-LO for message and call routing applications. For such applications to interoperate successfully location information will need to be normative and more constrained than is currently described in the PIDF-LO specification. This paper makes recommendations on how to constrain, represent and interpret locations in a PIDF-LO. It further looks at existing communications standards that make use of geodetic information for routing purposes and recommends a subset of GML that MUST be implemented by applications to allow message routing to occur.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)