I'd like to repost my request for volunteers to define a json encoding for 
RFC5491 (geolocation) and RFC6350 (vCard).
These could/should be separate documents, referenced by the data structure to 
be defined in the main solution document.


-          Gabor


From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bajko 
Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley)
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:32 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [paws] JSON encoding

5194 is an unrelated RFC, did you mean 5491 instead? That is what I also 
proposed for geolocation.
That has all the things Ben is looking  for, including uncertainty, altitude, 
the datum ID (I guess) is part of the GML 3.1.1

I was not proposing to use 6350 for geolocation, but instead for the contact 
and schedule information.


-          gabor


From: ext Rosen, Brian 
[mailto:[email protected]]<mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:59 AM
To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley)
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [paws] JSON encoding

<as individual>
Use 5194, which is based on OGC's GML in preference to 6350.  Among other 
things, you may need the ability to encode uncertainty of location.

You could consider the Geo URI (RFC5870), but it has the same uncertainty 
problem.

Brian



On Sep 25, 2012, at 1:41 PM, 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:

I scanned through the data which has to be carried by PAWS, and it looks to me 
that there are two RFCs which we may consider re-using: RFC5491 defines the xml 
encoding for geo-location, I did not find a JSON encoding for it. The other one 
is vCard, RFC6350. There is a so called xCard, RFC6351, the xml representation 
of vCard, but again, I have not found a JSON encoding for vCard. vCard seems to 
be able to handle contact information, schedule, etc, but there are obviously 
other data fields, like antenna parameters, which need to be defined in PAWS.

First, I'd like to get some opinions on whether the reuse of the data 
structures defined in the above two RFCs is generally considered a good idea or 
not. If we want to reuse them, we'll need to define a JSON encoding for those. 
The alternative is to define the whole data structure with JSON encoding in 
PAWS.

I'd like to hear opinions on which way is more feasible.

-          Gabor


_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws

_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws

Reply via email to