Re: Last Call: 'Location Types Registry' to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Jan 17, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:

I have only had a brief look at this document but I'd like to second
some of the concerns raised so far.

1) If locations can be registered on a fcfs basis we can expect
   receivers to see locations that they are unfamiliar with.  As such,
   we need to do better about internationalization for locations.  It
   is not good enough to treat locations as identifiers that are not
   displayed to a user if receivers are often going to run into
   locations.

Not that I fully understand your concern, but would you want expert review of new additions?

2) Many of the definitions seem arbitrary.  club vs bar vs cafe vs
   restaurant as an example.

Do you have a suggestion about how this can be less arbitrary?

3) The fact that some entries describe holonym relations without any
   defined structure to deal with this is at least concerning.

Maybe this can be remedied with some guidelines as to what constitutes a reasonable entry. I'm not sure if that is possible, but it certainly seems like "car" would be a useful entry as opposed to "seat" which would both be valid if somebody were riding in a seat in a car.

-andy

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]