[Geowanking] location privacy?

Anselm Hook anselm at hook.org
Thu Aug 21 11:29:38 PDT 2003


I'd say just strip bits off long lat.

The 'being near the picadilly tube' is appealing because it is very human;
but doesn't it make a notation for a 'physical resource locator' harder
for computers to deal with?

For example any software agent attempting to tether that location would
have to have a placename database of all anchoring points...  then you'd
need a placename Name Service of some kind...  and it goes on from
there...  long lat quantization seems simpler...

 - a

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Dan Brickley wrote:

> * Joshua Schachter <joshua at burri.to> [2003-08-21 13:40-0400]
> > > Go postal!
> >
> > This involves location semantics. Not the answer I'm looking for.
> >
> > Yes, I realize you could name an area instead of a point, but this forces
> > you to be able to identify areas. This is an uncontrollable vocabulary at
> > best or an unknowable one at worst.
>
> Not quite sure if what you're after, but http://esw.w3.org/topic/GeoInfo
> -> http://esw.w3.org/topic/GeoOnion has a sketch of an RDF vocabulary
> for talking about things being within-n-metres-of other things. We just
> need to pick an appropriate scale.
>
> See also foaf:based_near in FOAF for a vaguer stopgap,
> http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/#term_based_near
>
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> Geowanking mailing list
> Geowanking at lists.burri.to
> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
>




More information about the Geowanking mailing list