Re: [Geopriv] Proposal for uncertainty
"Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz> Tue, 27 May 2014 15:42 UTC
Return-Path: <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>
X-Original-To: geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CB3F1A034E for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 08:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o-AU8LR6qxWF for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 08:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from neustar.com (mx1.neustar.com [156.154.17.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15DE31A0254 for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 08:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stntexhc12.cis.neustar.com (stntexhc12.va.neustar.com [10.31.58.71]) by stihiron1.va.neustar.com with smtp (TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) id 6856_b583_81a5c19b_c69e_49c0_911b_7eeecd792467; Tue, 27 May 2014 11:40:56 -0400
Received: from STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.com ([169.254.5.252]) by stntexhc12.cis.neustar.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 27 May 2014 11:40:38 -0400
From: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>
To: Roger Marshall <RMarshall@telecomsys.com>
Thread-Topic: [Geopriv] Proposal for uncertainty
Thread-Index: AQHPecIC2E39eIZ1L0CE+rYQ7OFU7w==
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 15:40:38 +0000
Message-ID: <40D3F9D0-46E0-4A83-91BB-40ADC6537FBA@neustar.biz>
References: <CABkgnnWHaxgEKBbb8g0b3wAC1gujZ8XQqJngM+K=gG0Xtr3wuw@mail.gmail.com> <CACgrgBZVhmzJB+4=w78e3eh4W3LXD5wQKwSpQdD5R48pf7RJFA@mail.gmail.com> <FBD5AAFFD0978846BF6D3FAB4C892ACC1015F923@SEA-EXMB-1.telecomsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <FBD5AAFFD0978846BF6D3FAB4C892ACC1015F923@SEA-EXMB-1.telecomsys.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.33.192.21]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_40D3F9D046E04A8391BB40ADC6537FBAneustarbiz_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/geopriv/QhVUaEDOoJ4TgorPfn0QPMBm8Ak
Cc: GEOPRIV WG <geopriv@ietf.org>, Marc Linsner <mlinsner@cisco.com>, Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Proposal for uncertainty
X-BeenThere: geopriv@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Geographic Location/Privacy <geopriv.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/>
List-Post: <mailto:geopriv@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 15:42:15 -0000
No mechanism to collect location, especially civic location, is error free. There is a statistical probability a civic location supplied as “THE” location of some target is incorrect. It might be a small probability, it may be hard to calculate what it is, but there is some probability. With enough data, it IS possible to quantify the error. I think we will be able to do that in environments like emergency calling. So, I’d like to see some language addressing the issue. Brian On May 23, 2014, at 8:48 PM, Roger Marshall <RMarshall@telecomsys.com<mailto:RMarshall@telecomsys.com>> wrote: I would agree that getting everyone to agree on how they see probabilities used with civic addresses is a stretch. Yet, the fact that the draft now allows for 100%, yet with cautionary language is a good thing to have. All the other changes looks good to me. Thanks Martin. -roger marshall. From: Henning G Schulzrinne [mailto:hgs@cs.columbia.edu] Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 4:28 PM To: Martin Thomson Cc: GEOPRIV WG; Marc Linsner; Roger Marshall; Ray Bellis Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Proposal for uncertainty This is a reasonably-well known problem and seems similar to the "there is a 30% chance that it rains today" - it either rains, or it doesn't. The same can be said about a "home detection" algorithm that is based (for example) on some inferences (e.g., time of day and last GPS coordinates). In that context, it does make sense to say "there's an 80% chance that the caller is at home", which really means "in 80% of cases with the same amount of information, the person was indeed at home". It's relatively easy to calculate the weather case (although there's the rumor that weather forecasts over-predict rain since nobody complains if their BBQ does NOT get rained out), but probably hard for our case, given the lack of retrospective ground truth. Henning On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com<mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> wrote: I spoke about the one remaining issue with -uncertainty yesterday with Ray. That conversation, along with Roger's comments regarding automated location determination helped me realize what I think the source of the disconnect here is. Based on this, I've tentatively concluded that the difference between civic and geodetic location is not what is at the core of the issue, though it's probably true that the issue only manifests with civic location information. Primarily because of our better intuition regarding civic addresses. The core of the concern is that confidence - as a statistical measure - doesn't really make any sort of sense for location information that is a bald assertion, as opposed to locations that are generated by some measurement process (and here I give a nod to Carl for pointing out reverse geocoding as an example of a measurement process that ends with civic location). For example, the assertion "I am at home" is verifiable and basically either correct or not, usually the former. It's only when taken in a larger context that terms like "confidence" even apply. In particular, that means automated location determination. I've taken a stab at clarifying this in the draft. I've also permitted 100% confidence in the schema. At the same time, I've retained the text describing this as impossible, but that text is all in the context of the statistical work, so I hope that the introductory material makes that clear enough. The changes are here: https://github.com/martinthomson/drafts/commit/c2207408af95de74d1f4bb7d790965d69d4b3045 A readable copy is here: http://martinthomson.github.io/drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-uncertainty.html Happy as always to take suggestions. I'd like to think that this helps address Marc's concern without needing to cut Section 3.3 entirely. _______________________________________________ Geopriv mailing list Geopriv@ietf.org<mailto:Geopriv@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, any review, forwarding, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete it and all attachments from your computer and network. _______________________________________________ Geopriv mailing list Geopriv@ietf.org<mailto:Geopriv@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
- [Geopriv] Proposal for uncertainty Martin Thomson
- Re: [Geopriv] Proposal for uncertainty Henning G Schulzrinne
- Re: [Geopriv] Proposal for uncertainty Roger Marshall
- Re: [Geopriv] Proposal for uncertainty Rosen, Brian
- Re: [Geopriv] Proposal for uncertainty Martin Thomson
- Re: [Geopriv] Proposal for uncertainty Marc Linsner (mlinsner)
- Re: [Geopriv] Proposal for uncertainty Rosen, Brian
- Re: [Geopriv] Proposal for uncertainty Ray Bellis
- Re: [Geopriv] Proposal for uncertainty Marc Linsner (mlinsner)
- Re: [Geopriv] Proposal for uncertainty Martin Thomson