Some additional comments on closer reading and a general comment:
This registry intentionally (if you look at the RPID document) is not
meant to directly extend the RPID schema. I suppose that one could
add that any location types added automatically become XML elements
in the urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:rpid namespace. I don't know if
that's appropriate. I think it's appropriate (and necessary to add)
that any registrations must be legal XML element names.
2) Inadequate context for use:
The document does not make reference to RPID, except in
"acknowledgement". Thus, it has to be interpreted as stand-alone,
and must contain its own guidance. RPID states:
These things guide the usage of place-types in RPID, but cannot be
found from the registry document.
Since usage will strongly depend on the context and since this
registry is not limited to RPID, I think this would belong into RPID
(or other documents), not the registry.
This document SHOULD give guidance for usage, saying at least:
- whether it's intended that several of these values can be used
together
I'd assume yes, in general, but defining that seems to be the role of
the protocol using these elements, not a registry.
I think of the registry like a dictionary. A dictionary does not
define which words you can use together.
- whether it's intended that a sequence of location types gives a
progressively more precise set of terms (in which case
internationalizing the last type you understand is appropriate) or
names an intersection of the classes (in which case you would have
to internationalize all of them).
There is no implication of hierarchy. In general, this seems
difficult to achieve since not all location types are hierarchical.
For example, an airport might contain a bank or a shopping-area, but
that does not make either a subcategory of an airport.
I also don't understand the need for I18N, since these are tokens
that would be translated by a local application, not rendered to users.
- 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.
It MAY be appropriate to say something about field of use, like
RPID does ("what types of communication is appropriate" would lead
one to distinguish between "driving a car" and "passenger in a
car", while one could imagine that other usages might want to
distinguish between "expensive restaurant" and "cheap restaurant").
We are not trying to define a service location protocol that
describes numerical properties of locations. I don't know how to rule
this out by legal wording; presumably the expert reviewer can make
common-sense judgement.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf