1 / 6

draft-rosen-geopriv-pidf-interior-01

draft-rosen-geopriv-pidf-interior-01. Brian Rosen Neustar. Reminder of what this does. Defines a new CAtype , INT, that has 2 parameters N= The “Name” of the item, e.g. “Gate” R= The order of rendering name/value, Before/After More than one INT can occur, order is important

sasson
Download Presentation

draft-rosen-geopriv-pidf-interior-01

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. draft-rosen-geopriv-pidf-interior-01 Brian Rosen Neustar

  2. Reminder of what this does • Defines a new CAtype, INT, that has 2 parameters • N= The “Name” of the item, e.g. “Gate” • R= The order of rendering name/value, Before/After • More than one INT can occur, order is important <int N=“Terminal”>1</int> <int N=“Concourse”>A</int> <int N=“Gate”>33</int> <int N=“Level”, R=“A”>Upper</int> • Effectively replaces BLDG/FLR/UNIT/ROOM although we don’t deprecate these fields (as we did with RD

  3. What is wrong with BLDG/FLOOR/UNIT/ROOM? Lots of structures can’t be represented with fixed tags Trying to force them into the fixed tags leads to inconsistent results (is a Concourse a “UNIT” and a Gate a “ROOM” or is Concourse a “Floor” and “Gate” a UNIT so we can have a “Loading Bridge” as a ROOM? Doesn’t match local plans/signage/databases

  4. INT really does work for current and future space designations Clearly works for any existing structure with signage or flat floor plans Works for newer structured plans (“Building Information Model”) Several organizations (example, U.S. Federal Geospatial Data Committee) came to the same conclusion: ordered list of tags with name/value

  5. Registry The document currently has a registry with expert review and advice to expert to be liberal The registry really doesn’t help: what you need to do is match existing signage and plans and future data models Lots of taxonomies, no agreement on one But if you think it will help you, it’s in there

  6. This rev/next steps Version 01 adds registry, has a couple of minor cleanups Work group item?

More Related