Subject: [Geopriv] Draft Updates "GEO TAGS for HTML and HTTP" and Request for re listing in the GEOPRIV Chart

From: Felix Kaegi <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 13:42:45 +0100

Ladies and Gentlemen

hereby the Authors of this two Drafts kindly request the GEOPRIV
working group in the name of the Internet Community to:

1) Accept and re list these two drafts as the latest working drafts updating 
the expired drafts previously called: 
draft-daviel-html-geo-tag-xx and
draft-daviel.http-geo-header-xx

As the GEOPRIV group still mentions the expired Drafts in the Chart on
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/geopriv-charter.html we would kindly suggest:

2) Consider / Mention theses  two drafts in the working group chart with the aim
 to give the Internet Community (especially the wide Community of HTML Authors)
 a simple way for adding GEO Meta tags to their Web pages.

3) Consider / Mention these two drafts in the working group chart with
the aim to
 give the Internet Community (especially the Community of http Tool/Browser
 Programmers) a simple way to handle GEO Information based on the
 preferences of the Users program settings and therefor not raising 
 any security issues.

Please note that I would like to commit further time and energy to
support the group in this topic as the group wishes so.

PS: If you google the keyword geotags you will  find that beside the
rather business oriented geourl solution is highly requested from the
Internet Community because there is still no other standard available.

kind regards felix

Please feel free to contact any of the draft authors

 Felix A. Kaegi
 Dipl.Informatik Ing. ETH (MSc.)
 Friedensgasse 51 
 CH-4056 Basel
 SWITZERLAND

 +41 61 383 10 01
 +41 79 625 27 41
 skype felix_kaegi
 [email-masked]

or

 Andrew Daviel, BSc.
 Vancouver Webpages, Box 357
 185-9040 Blundell Rd
 Richmond BC
 V6Y 1K3
 Canada

 Tel. (604)-377-4796
 Fax. (604)-270-8285
 [email-masked]
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: Felix Kaegi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:09:06 +0100

Ladies and Gentlemen

3 weeks ago you were sent this draft request. We would be very
thankful for a short reaction. What are your plans with these drafts ?
Is this still the right ietf group ?

kind regards
felix

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Felix Kaegi <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 13:42:45 +0100
Subject: Draft Updates "GEO TAGS for HTML and HTTP" and Request for re
listing in the GEOPRIV Chart
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
[email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]

Ladies and Gentlemen

kind regards felix

Felix A. Kaegi

+41 61 383 10 01
+41 79 625 27 41
skype felix_kaegi
[email-masked]

or

Andrew Daviel, BSc.

Tel. (604)-377-4796
Fax. (604)-270-8285

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:00:31 -0500

On Mar 22, 2005, at 10:09 AM, Felix Kaegi wrote:

> What are your plans with these drafts ?

Putting the question a different way, who objects to this working group 
accepting these drafts as work items?

-andy

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:01:48 -0600

>accepting these drafts as work items?

comments on draft-daviel-kaegi-html-geo-tag-07.txt

- someone needs to clean up the template used to be appropriate

- I don't believe I like the applicability section that limits the tags to 
fixed, non-moving objects, and "...may not be used for multinational 
companies...". I think this will be misunderstood to be used for "where's 
the nearest Pizza Hut?", which is disallowed because it is multinational, 
but "where's Bob's Ace Hardware store?" is fine because it is magically 
local in nature.

- the ID mentions this is for "where a river is", yet that is not going to 
be given in a single coordinate pair (x,y); thus making this specific 
reference highly ambiguous in use;

- I also don't like the ambiguity about datums (none is specified), and the 
lack of a definition of what is meant by altitude. The text seems to point 
out some of the problems, but not really deal with how to address them.

- the draft raises no security issues by not dealing with privacy and 
revelation according to anyone who may believe they have the right to 
provide a location of a thing.

Thus, I object to this effort if privacy cannot be adequately addressed as 
to who is allowed to associate a location with a tag.

comments on draft-daviel-kaegi-http-geo-header-05.txt

- the example section chose a poor example. If my laptop doesn't know where 
it is, it cannot supply enough information to know which weather map is 
which URI. This seems to be an attempt to get around a tunneling search for 
where a user is to learn information to is available if the person 
identifies what they want.

- section 2 says
  "In cases where the object being described is an area, such as a lake
    or a building, the position of the object should not in general be
    given to greater precision than the width of the object."

then how would Lake Michigan be described? Or how would the Mississippi 
River be described?

Neither is square or rectangular - but this is the limitation of how each 
can be expressed (unless I'm missing something).

- section 4 - where are all these values (and their hierarchies) assigned? 
CA-ON is Ontario, Canada to you,  having spent time in Southern California 
(it washed off BTW) I misunderstood CA-ON for Ontario, California very quickly.

BTW - at the site http://geotags.com/geo/DMS3.html I typed in CA for the 
country code, and ON for the region code, and got a failure - I did not get 
Canada anything, nor did I get California anything. This may be a function 
of the website, or it may be a function of ISO3166-2 not being specific 
enough. I'm not sure, but this error has be questioning what would we use 
that works?

- there is no normative text discussing security, privacy or other such 
considerations. I think that is bad.

Therefore, I have strong concerns with this effort moving forward until 
these issues can be addressed in direction first, specifics later.

>-andy

cheers,
James

                                *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:37:51 -0500

On Mar 22, 2005, at 2:01 PM, James M. Polk wrote:

> the draft raises no security issues by not dealing with privacy and 

It would seem the disconnect between these drafts and the work-to-date 
within GEOPRIV centers on the use cases - given the regard to privacy 
GEOPRIV has taken.

Perhaps we could get a list of places where these drafts have been 
implemented so we can better understand the uses to which these specs 
are being put.

Beyond that, it be worth explaining the differences between HTML-tags 
or HTTP-headers and a PIDF-LO that is completely permissive.  This 
relates back to use case, where the first maybe only relevant to the 
act of web browsing but the second is more general purpose.

-andy

---

From: "Carl Reed" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 23:16:18 -0500 (EST)

Felix -

Sorry the delay in responding. I need to re-read these documents and then
summarize them to the membership of the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC).
The OGC membership has been and is developing interface and encoding
standards that enable interoperability and integration of geospatial
content and services in a variety of environments, including web services
SOAs, enterprise applications, portals, location services stacks, and so
forth. I believe that our membership could provide excellent guidance in
the context of GEO TAGS for HTML and HTTP.
Kind regards

Carl Reed, PhD
CTO
OGC

> 1) Accept and re list these two drafts as the latest working drafts
> updating the expired drafts previously called:
> 2) Consider / Mention theses  two drafts in the working group chart
> with the aim to give the Internet Community (especially the wide
> Community of HTML Authors) a simple way for adding GEO Meta tags to
> their Web pages.
>
> give the Internet Community (especially the Community of http
> Tool/Browser Programmers) a simple way to handle GEO Information based
> on the
> preferences of the Users program settings and therefor not raising any
> security issues.
>

---

From: Egil Kvaleberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:00:53 +0100

>the context of GEO TAGS for HTML and HTTP.
Speaking very much from the sideline here (currently working to organize 
geographic information in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/, via a GIS 
type extension), I very much see the time is over-ripe for a KISS and 
straight forward meta tag that  includes the geographic position along 
with a minimum of extra information.

These drafts seem to be pretty much spot on for our needs, and the 
concept also seems to be extendable in the future. In my view, if these 
drafts can be promoted to a higher status (RFC?) by some simple 
extensions (like locking to WGS84, and mentioning that there is a 
privacy concern more or less similar to publishing your street address), 
them I am personally very much in favor of doing so, instead of waiting 
for perhaps large and complex solutions to what is really a small problem.

Regards,
Egil Kvaleberg
Oslo, Norway