Re: [dhcwg] Fwd: Working Group Last Call: Location Configuration Information for GEOPRIV

I support Henning on the requirement for a UoM. This is why I referenced the
OGC recommendation paper on Units of Measurement. Many geospatial
technologies today - in order to make best use of coordinates - need to know
the UoM.

Regards

Carl

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henning Schulzrinne" <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
To: "Marc Linsner" <mlinsner@cisco.com>
Cc: "'Andrew Daviel'" <andrew@daviel.org>; <dhcwg@ietf.org>;
<geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Fwd: Working Group Last Call: Location Configuration
Information for GEOPRIV

> Marc Linsner wrote:
>
>
> > For those who are struggling with this, it is not our intention to
> > (re)define zero altitude. We are simply attempting to provide a
> > mechanism for people who understand altitude values to share them
> > amongst each other via a standardized mechanism. If one were to receive
> > such data, it is assumed that they will understand the definition of
> > zero altitude within the jurisdiction/authority from which the data
> > originated. Some map datum define zero altitude, some don't. For those
> > that don't, we define mean low tide.
>
> Like the datum, what's wrong with providing an indication of the unit of
> the measurement?
>
> I think it is generally a bad idea to assume that all parties along a
> chain of transmission know what the data meant initially. This only adds
> a modest number of bits to the format, given that the number of choices
> appears to be on the order of two.
>
Received on Thu Jul 3 11:23:50 2003