Subject: RE: [Simple] comments on rpids-01 - <placetype>

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:12:42 -0400

>[email-masked] wrote:
>
>
>> Would a watcher be able to obtain each (seemingly 
>individual) definition of the
>> <home> and <work> semantics (like the one you gave for your 
>definition of home and work
>> within your presence information)? 
>
>I'm not sure I completely understand your question, so please 
>try again 
>if I'm not answering it. Each tuple could have a separate <placetype> 
>definition. In our prototype, each device can individually 
>discover that 
>property, either by inference from the location or by a short-range 
>'placetype/privacy/location' beacon for indoor environments.

Let's assume that your phone would infer from its current positition
that you're within 110-120th and Broadway-Amsterdam in New York, i.e.,
the <placetype> element of your (device's) presence would be <work>?!

Further assume, that at another point in time, your phone determines the <placetype>
elements through said indoor beacon system, updating your presence (more correctly the
<placetype> element) appropriately. 

Let's further assume that I (or an application running on my device) subscribes
to your presence and retrieves, among other entries, the <placetype> element with its current value
<work>, assuming that its retrieval is permitted by you.

My question is whether I'm aware of the underlying semantic, i.e., "between
110-120th and Broadway-Amsterdam" or "within in-door beacon range" when I receive
your current presence with the <placetype> element?

Dirk

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

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:22:58 -0400

> the <placetype> element of your (device's) presence would be <work>?!

Yes.

> your current presence with the <placetype> element?

No, unless I include the geoloc information, you wouldn't know how I 
found out.

In general, the PIDF and RPIDS information for all elements does not 
reveal how the information was derived, whether by beacons, location 
lookup, calendar, first- or third-party (secretary) manual entry, or 
some other mechanism. I suppose one could make an argument that each 
element, not just <placetype>, should contain a confidence indication or 
a source indication, but I suspect that this isn't all that useful in 
practice. Some people update their calendar so that the meeting ending 
time is listed as 3.17 pm, others won't enter their three-week vacation.

Also, we've always allowed that presentities can 'fib' about their 
presence information, so a watcher probably would appreciate independent 
verification of the information more than yet more easily   creatable 
meta-data.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:22:58 -0400

Yes.