I think that in order for a vocabulary like this to be useful, it has to
fit its purpose. A vocabulary that is made to fit multiple purposes will
in the end fit neither - for one recent example, see the discussion
between the "mail folks" and the "RTP folks" over the proper
registration and meaning of MIME content-types.
I can't prove or disprove that statement, unfortunately. We won't know
whether the location types will be useful until somebody uses them. I
suspect that "real" GIS applications will need a far more specialized
vocabulary, but it turns out that, for example, a proposal for crime
scene labeling more or less fits into the proposed registered list. (We
found this out after creating the list.)
Currently, there are two potential customers: RPID and AAA.
Yes, it does. By implication, a dictionary is for a language, and a
language is (among other things) a set of rules on how to put the words
together - and it VERY strongly implies that in order to understand a
word's meaning, you have to look at its context.
Dictionaries I know generally define the word by itself. Indeed, many of
the definitions in the document are very close to (English) dictionary
definitions.
To illustrate: In the flat case, "restroom, cafe, airport" could be
localized as "Toalett, <ukjent sted>, Flyplass" in Norwegian if the
application doesn't know the translation of "cafe"; in the hierarchical
case, one could imagine "McDonalds, cafe, eating-place, public building,
indoors" - it would be OK to localize that as "Spisested" if "cafe"
isn't known.
We'll note in the draft that there is no implied hierarchy, except where
noted. (For example, 'restaurant' is an umbrella term that includes
'cafe' and 'bar'.)
- whether having a text string alongside it (the "note" above) is a
recommended practice.
That's again an RPID issue. Not every protocol using these tokens will
have notes.
There's no second protocol at the moment, so you have the chance to
provide guidance...
Yes: AAA
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-radius-lo-04.txt)
Legal wording isn't what I'm looking for. Hints to the reviewer about
what the WG considers "common sense" would be helpful.
To better understand what you have in mind, can you give an example?
There are some obvious things, like:
- not specific to a country
- not a specific company or organization
- well-defined
- widely recognized
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf