Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Timezones in Civic locations

From: "Moore, Lyn E" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 14:34:22 +1000

Hi James -

I have been watching the discussion and found it quite amusing.  So to
answer your question - yes I care.  

If a place doesn't have a civic address then the user probably has
little or no network connectivity. People tend to access communication
networks in buildings.  Mobile access also tends to be where people are
(in or near buildings), even in sparsely populated areas.  So timezone
in this context is probably meaningless.
  
However, local time could be a useful tool in the notification of
presence / availability.  For example, don't contact me in Australia as
it is midnight even though it is afternoon in Europe.  Is this included
an any of the myriad of IETF drafts you guys are producing ?

Regards
Lyn Moore
Telstra Corporation

-----Original Message-----
From: Winterbottom, James [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, 5 April 2006 1:56 PM
To: Andrew Newton; Henning Schulzrinne
Cc: GEOPRIV; Thomson, Martin
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Timezones in Civic locations

Okay, so we have 3 against and 1 for.
Does anybody else care?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 5 April 2006 12:40 PM
> To: Henning Schulzrinne
> Cc: GEOPRIV; Thomson, Martin
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Timezones in Civic locations
> 
> And they don't always follow straight lines in the oceans either:
> http://reverie.aaeol.ca/about/timezone.p
> 
> I think what you have just pointed out is that in some places on the 
> planet, all there is of a civic location is timezone.
> 
> -andy
> 
> On Apr 4, 2006, at 9:35 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> 
> > Timezones exist in places without civic locations, such as the open 
> > ocean or Antarctica. I don't know how practically significant these 
> > are, but at least the usual maps in the back of airline magazines 
> > show these...
> >
> >> How is it not civic?  Aren't timezone boundaries determined in part

> >> by political process, much like other parts of civic
locations?
> >> -andy
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Geopriv mailing list
> >> [email-masked]
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Geopriv mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately
and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of this email is
prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
[mf2]

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 23:42:21 -0500

Hi Lyn,

Henning pointed out that the Rich Presence draft
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-rpid-10.txt) does
have support for timezone indications, so this can be addressed in
presence documents. I agree that representing timezone information in a
presence document provide value. What I am not so convinced about is
whether this should be included in the civic location information
schema. Do you believe it should be?

Cheers
James

> From: Moore, Lyn E [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 5 April 2006 2:34 PM
> To: Winterbottom, James
> Cc: GEOPRIV; Thomson, Martin; Andrew Newton; Henning Schulzrinne

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

---

From: "Chapman, Simon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 16:10:26 -0700

At the risk of being overly philosophical,
While I agree that a location can be converted
To a "local" TZ similarly to "what PSAP shape does
This fall in ?", timezone as an attribute of timestamp
Depends on who is looking at it, e.g. if a 911 call is
Delivered to the other side of a TZ line, who's TZ
Should be communicated ? i.e. it cannot be uniquely determined
Using a geocode.

Which is probably why some 911 protocols communicate their
Timestamp in UTC/MT, and let the receiver convert it based
on their TZ.

I think I'm agreeing that communicating TZ has little value.

-----Original Message-----
From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 3:25 PM
To: Andrew Newton
Cc: 'GEOPRIV'
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Timezones in Civic locations

Andrew,

I'll try one more time to be succinct, but won't belabor the topic 
beyond this since you seem to just repeat the same "why not" argument.

(1) Timezone is uniquely determined if you can geocode, with 
widely-available and public databases. They are derived information in 
exactly the same way that a PSAP is location-derived information. 
According to your logic, we'd have to include the PSAP URL in the civic 
information as well since it has exactly the same properties.

(2) As I stated before, the amount of location-derived information that 
could be included with locations is essentially infinite. Thus, asking 
'why not' is not a useful discriminator. The question has to be "which 
information is necessary to enhance civic address information in the two

primary purposes of message and people delivery."

Having a separate discussion on XML objects for location-derived 
information might be a useful thing, but as a completely separate 
namespace and independent of civic or geo coordinates. However, that 
seems a more appropriate discussion for a GIS-related standardization
body.

Henning

Andrew Newton wrote:
> Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> But both are still determined via a political process.  They are not 

Right - so are street names and county borders. That similarity tells us

very little.

> derived -- meaning you cannot take the other components of the civic 
> location alone and determine the timezone or the postal code.  Sure, 

I've pointed out before that you can do this for timezones, assuming you

can geocode to handle the odd cases like Sioux County. Geocoding is 
insufficient for zip codes.

> there maybe a database somewhere that might be able to the mapping for

> some locations, but that is true of every aspect of a civic location 
> with regards to geographical coordinates.  Otherwise, all of civic
could 
> be nixed under your guidelines thanks to geocoding... and I'm pretty 
> sure that won't fly.
> 
> Now, I will ask this question for the 3rd time.  And perhaps somebody 
> can answer it this time. Just what harm would it cause to include this

> datum?