IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson-geopriv-confidence-03

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 31 July 2013 13:41 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6D2F21E8056 for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.452
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.452 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.148, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sGs25RaT9jYg for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x231.google.com (mail-we0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D31221F87BB for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f177.google.com with SMTP id m46so613486wev.22 for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+JhXjfU2WXY48TPwnc1k1hPYYsJF3eRQ00libBq9a/o=; b=LHreZHJYRFlz+xECEdV+hf3IcI+ZGNSIDcyMV0BY+b/bGRS8LRNlHbfM7KzUfUfdnS itFWPM5Grul4Gnn2oWjadY23to1YH9tsDp4vyeM+RKeOXx3ej6nX1LMVwJWE3G0SnxNv GIsv9F9zQIQXQcDHWDxIEsHtpp5wQaoa9RPxepWQflQRZrknAXr/8rkt3brItJPKaBlx zThwVjKFfp+bgS+uG96gJWMcyeCCTSo5ZNI20zIXF8kVecOERnUXqdxYrq1vPyjEj8ZU 7LP94eRmzDzAJsgrg7r43VCgmPOydS2XJjE9xlLlbOMxle4i0ApSeUVcoyt6AvBDvFsI 8v2g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.39.236 with SMTP id s12mr4375652wik.14.1375278086948; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.60.46 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7273FCC2-82ED-48DD-8FBF-E8D8A8085244@cs.columbia.edu>
References: <CACWXZj3kKwXTx85NLWMcum-21foHcESNKaiYSUELNfwM8UP5Vg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXGT5jaGrMaA_6+DEJW2Nq3VVFALFH3HC6aoQFhJWrX9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAOPrzE2dFNocXg_1OY1_rq0ZRznsMBzLKpviLphUOmfgtXBCNQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWs-XzzX6gh5J3NUfFBYvAVbr-F7+UmM_az3tZipy0qhw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOPrzE24CXRAfJtNtekLcbR7RiGqDjqAMvt7ftYR9=r8mBvomg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnU+jcVx6=+i=OuA8=8U32HYpr92tJDXNPjXDhYBua1CDw@mail.gmail.com> <F58BBB12-65FC-44B8-AB8B-DB5FCB7B2F7B@cs.columbia.edu> <CABkgnnVu4mB0956+QRcgJCRCMWsFCYUq2zwR-Xu2BpRDnfZeUA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUC57BuOGYesnkxxpMwsYjFAoFfMQ8xe=uYTpSsS1UESA@mail.gmail.com> <7273FCC2-82ED-48DD-8FBF-E8D8A8085244@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:41:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CABkgnnX5AJRe+yneouGQ0dWkPfOcxgj=2baxku6tfkvU6c-vmw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: GEOPRIV WG <geopriv@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson-geopriv-confidence-03
X-BeenThere: geopriv@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:41:30 -0000

On 31 July 2013 15:32, Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
> But can you capture these provisioning problems in any kind of confidence indication? If an error occurs that places a Berlin base station in Orlando (e.g., due to a typo in the long/lat data), the notion of a confidence ring doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

You cannot capture these sorts of errors in an *uncertainty*
indication (larger circles, etc..)  But the purpose of confidence is
to say: the location you have is probably correct 68% of the time,
based on what I know about similar situations.

Thus, if you have a large and dodgy database (say of WiFi access
points) that has a particular high, but historically known, error
rate, you can factor that into any expression of confidence.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email