RE: Terminology... sighting ?

Sorry, I should have said target-ID instead of client-ID all through.

-- Ajith

To: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@marconi.com>
cc: "Drage, Keith (Keith)" <drage@lucent.com>, "'John Morris '"
      <jmorris@cdt.org>, "'geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org '"
      <geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org>
From: Ajith Narayanan/Singapore/IBM@IBMSG
Subject: RE: Terminology... sighting ? (Document link: Ajith Narayanan)

OK. This may sound pedantic... but there is a difficulty with saying
     Location = <client-ID, location, timeStamp>
The problem is that something called location exists on both sides of the
type definition, and they are different things. With Sighting on the LHS,
     Sighting = <client-ID, location, timeStamp>
there is no confusion.

Also, the fact being captured is that such-and-such was located (sighted)
at such-and-such location at such-and-such time. The subject of privacy
applies to the whole thing as a combination and much less to the parts.

Cheers,
-- Ajith

--
"Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@marconi.com> on 12/14/2001 11:56:34 AM
To:   Ajith Narayanan/Singapore/IBM@IBMSG, "Drage, Keith (Keith)"
      <drage@lucent.com>
cc:   "'John Morris '" <jmorris@cdt.org>, "'geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org '"
      <geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org>
Subject:  RE: Terminology... sighting ?
I personally don't get confused with Location Owner.
I can deal with Sighting, but I like Location better.
Brian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ajith Narayanan [mailto:ajithn@sg.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:50 PM
> To: Drage, Keith (Keith)
> Cc: 'John Morris '; 'geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org '; Rosen, Brian
> Subject: RE: Terminology... sighting ?
>
>
>
>
> I support Keith's suggestion to prefix the relevant terms
> with "location",
> at least in principle.  But one  hick-up happens when it gets
> to "owner",
> the resulting term "location owner" turns a little awkward
> and seems to
> refer to the guy who owns the place (or, is it only me who
> gets so easily
> confused?).
>
> So I would be happy to suggest "sighting owner"... etc.  That
> is, to prefix
> the relevant terms with "sighting".
>
> The main problem with the word "sighting" may be that it  is
> foreign to
> existing terminology used by LIF, TIA etc.   But in existing work on
> location-aware computing, sighting is well understood, and is
> defined as
> the 3-tuple <target-ID, location, timeStamp>.  (If ayone
> would like to have
> them, I'd be glad to supply references).
>
> Sighting, anyone ?
>
> Cheers,
> -- Ajith
> --
>
>
> "Drage, Keith (Keith)" <drage@lucent.com> on 12/14/2001 02:56:31 AM
>
> To:   "'John Morris '" <jmorris@cdt.org>,
> "'geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org '"
>       <geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org>, "Rosen, Brian"
>       <Brian.Rosen@marconi.com>
> cc:
> Subject:  RE: Terminology
>
>
>
> For all these definitions, can I suggest we carry an implicit word
> "location" in front of them all, therefore "(location) owner"
> etc. This
> therefore would make the other two terms "(location) provider" and
> "(location) seeker".
>
> The word location would only be used when there is a need to
> clarify from
> some other usage of the same term. Owner particularly is a
> word that gets
> used in other contexts.
>
> Keith
>
> Keith Drage
> Lucent Technologies
> Tel: +44 1793 776249
> Email: drage@lucent.com
>
> > ----------
> > From:   Rosen, Brian[SMTP:Brian.Rosen@marconi.com]
> > Sent:   12 December 2001 0:47
> > To:     'John Morris '; 'geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org '
> > Subject:     RE: Terminology
> >
> > Henning suggested "owner" for the policy determining entity, so
> > why don't we agree to that.
> >
> > I'd actually like a more descriptive term for the entity "carrying"
> > the target than "user".  Anyone got suggestions?
> >
> > Henning, like you, did not like "client' or "server".  He suggested
> > "location provider" and "location seeker".  I have no problem with
> > those choices.
> >
> > I don't yet appreciate the difference betweeen an involuntary
> > and a voluntary provider.  Please give me some hint of why
> > differentiating might affect the design of the object, the protocol
> > or the privacy considerations.  It seems to me that voluntary
> > or involuntary, you treat the data the same way.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Morris
> > To: geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org
> > Sent: 12/11/01 6:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: Terminology
> >
> > Brian,
> >
> > I strongly agree that we should start with definitions and
> terminology,
> > and
> > I include some comments and suggestions in line below.  But
> first, three
> >
> > preliminary comments:
> >
> > 1.  There are at least two places below where I suggest
> that we create
> > two
> > definitions where you suggest only single definitions.  I
> expect that
> > your
> > reaction to at least one of my two suggestions is that my
> distinction is
> >
> > irrelevant.  But I ask you to at least concede that the
> distinctions I
> > am
> > drawing are factually accurate.  It may well be that two different
> > categories of actors will in the final analysis be treated
> exactly the
> > same
> > (which is a conclusion that you suggested yesterday), but I
> think in our
> >
> > definitions we should still identify the different
> categories of actors
> > and
> > then later decide, if appropriate, to group two categories together.
> >
> > 2.  I suggest a couple of new terms below.  I do not care about the
> > precise
> > words I have suggested, only about the conceptual categories.  So if
> > anyone
> > has better words to describe the relevant categories,
> please offer them
> > up.
> >
> > 3.  My comments below focus on your suggested definitions, without
> > addressing whether the WG wants or needs to have a definition of
> > "location"
> > or types of location. We can discuss that in a later e-mail.
> >
> > On to my comments:
> >
> > At 12:43 PM 12/11/01 -0500, Rosen, Brian wrote:
> > >I'd like to start a discussion of terminology.
> > >
> > >I think we all agree on the term "target"; it's the device
> > >that has a location.
> >
> > Fine.
> >
> > >We usually use the term "user", in two contexts.  One is that
> > >the target is usually described as associated with the user.
> > >We really want the location of the user, but until we get
> > >implanted with GPS receivers and radios, we have targets
> > >that are separate from the user.  The other context we
> > >use "user" is that the user is the source of the privacy
> > >concern.  Ultimately, it is the user that grants rights to
> > >some other entity to learn the location of the target.
> >
> > I would split this into two, along the lines of:
> >    "user" is the person (if any) who is directly associated with the
> > target
> > device (by carrying the device, or driving it, etc.)
> >    "owner" is the person or entity (if different from the
> user) who is
> > the
> > appropriate person/entity to set privacy rules
> > To be clear, in some cases there may be no user at all -- an owner
> > simply
> > wants to locate the target device, and the device is not a proxy for
> > person.
> > Also to be clear, in many cases the user and owner may be
> one and the
> > same.  But clearly there will be scenarios in which the
> user and owner
> > are
> > not the same.  In the final analysis, it is possible that this
> > distinction
> > may not be all that relevant, but I for one cannot prejudge
> that at this
> > point.
> >
> > > >From there, we tend to fall apart on generally accepted
> > >terminology.  I'd like to propose that we use the policy
> > >terms like 'Policy Determination Point' and 'Policy
> > >Enforcement Point' which have accepted meanings when we
> > >discuss the application of the users policy on the
> > >location dissemination.  Is that acceptable?
> >
> > Personally, I do not yet clearly understand how you would
> define those
> > two
> > terms.  I can imagine their definition, and I think that I
> could get on
> > board with some definition, but can you spell out two separate
> > definitions?
> >
> > >Finally, I'd like to take a stab at convincing you that
> > >there are only two other entities (nouns) in this process.
> > >I think many have in mind that there are several other entities,
> > >but in my mind, there are only two.
> > >
> > >A Server is an entity that knows the location of a target.
> > >A Client is an entity that wants to find out the location
> > >of a target.
> > >
> > >See, wasn't that easy?
> >
> > Too easy, in my view!
> >
> > First, I agree with you that we may be able conflate many potential
> > categories of actor into a single term like "server."  So I
> accept your
> > effort to simplify.  I am not happy with "server" or
> "client" because
> > they
> > mean too many things already, but this concern is fairly minor.
> >
> > More importantly, let's come back to the debate you and I
> had yesterday
> > in
> > the WG about whether my use of the term "carrier" was
> accurate and/or
> > relevant.  You quickly convinced me that the word "carrier"
> is wrong,
> > but I
> > persist in thinking that there is a potentially relevant distinction
> > here.  Let me reformulate my distinction as follows (and
> please, I hope
> > someone comes up with better words than I have here):
> >
> > an "involuntary location processor" is an entity (like,
> e.g., a wireless
> >
> > carrier or a dial-up ISP) that unavoidably learns or can learn the
> > location
> > of the target, simply as a function of the role the entity
> plays in the
> > target's communications capability.  Thus, unless a cell phone user
> > simply
> > decided never to turn on the device, there is likely
> nothing the user or
> >
> > owner can do to stop the wireless carrier from learning the
> > location.  (Indeed, U.S. E911 laws may make this situation
> obligatory
> > for
> > the U.S.).
> >
> > a "voluntary location processor" is an entity that (a) receives the
> > target's location with the consent of the owner and (b) in
> most cases
> > takes
> > some action with the information (e.g., serves it,
> translates it, stores
> >
> > it, obfuscates it, returns other info to the target based on it).
> >
> > Now, I admit that ILPs and VLPs may well in the end be
> treated exactly
> > alike, and so you may be correct in suggesting that the
> distinction is
> > irrelevant.  But again, I for one doubt that the distinction will be
> > irrelevant, and I certainly cannot at this point in the analysis say
> > that
> > the ILP should not receive special attention.  Let's identify two
> > definitions and decide to conflate them later, if appropriate.
> >
> > Now, to round out my suggested terminology, I probably
> would substitute
> > something like "ultimate location recipient" instead of
> "client," but I
> > do
> > not think this is critical. The key, in my mind, is that
> the recipient
> > is
> > the last entity to receive the location information, and
> this recipient
> > may
> > well not need to know the full details of the owner's privacy rules.
> >
> > >Now, let's look at scenarios.  Please remember that these
> > >are logical functions, and a physical device can have
> > >multiple functions implemented in it.
> >
> > I agree that we should look at scenarios very soon, but I
> do not want to
> >
> > delay my thoughts above until I can get more time to
> comments on your
> > scenarios.  Also, reaching tentative consensus on the terminology is
> > probably a good first step.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------
> > John B. Morris, Jr.
> > Director, Internet Standards, Technology
> >     & Policy Project
> > Center for Democracy and Technology
> > 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
> > Washington, DC 20006
> > (202) 637-9800
> > (202) 637-0968 fax
> > jmorris@cdt.org
> > http://www.cdt.org
> > ----------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>