Re: Terminology

>
> I think we all agree on the term "target"; it's the device
> that has a location.
>
> 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.

In most cases, yes. Human could be also a target. Human can,
of course, know where he is without any devices - I can tell I
am at the 5the Avenue and 11th Street by just road signs, or at
Tokyo station, or Salt Lake City airport without GPS. And I may
be able to manually input their location in a descriptive format.
For example, consider the case that I register my location information
in my location provider, which is located in my desktop PC in Mountain
View office, that I will go to Palo Alto office and stay there off
line for the rest of the day. In this case, any device is collocated
with me, the target. Also In general, the entity that determines the
location is not collocated with the target - e.g. attacking the targets
from the sky. In my opinion, target is anything that a URI and the
location. But I agree that people often confuse that their location are
identical to location of the target and we should avoid that. But I
do not limit the posibility of location services. We do not gain a lot
by limiting the definition of target to devices.

Kenji
Received on Thu Dec 20 10:08:09 2001