RE: Back to terminology

At 4:54 PM +0100 2/6/02, Axel Busboom (EED) wrote:

>From a technical point of view, what we should focus on is
>_policies_. Using policies, the "owner" could specify whether or
>not it allows a "(private) location recipient" to further pass on
>the location information to third parties, or not. Likewise, a
>"(private) location recipient" could specify what it intends to do
>with the location information (pass it on, use it for own
>location-based services, etc.). Therefore, I would opt for dropping
>the "ultimate location recipient" and putting more emphasis on what
>exactly a policy can specify.

I agree, and in fact I'm concerned that much of the discussion and
suggestions are immensely complex. I think we need to make every
effort to restrict our scope. As John Noerenberg has mentioned
before, many of the questions and distinctions posted here are
interesting and vital, but do not need to be (or in some cases cannot
be) part of our technical work.

If we can develop something that allows the simple cases to work but
is extensible to more complex situations (which we can go on to
address afterwards), I think we will have succeeded. if we construct
something so complex that it is ignored, we will have failed.
Received on Tue Feb 19 16:56:13 2002