[Geowanking] location privacy?
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...
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,
> Geowanking mailing list
> Geowanking at lists.burri.to
More information about the Geowanking