{"draft":"draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-14","doc_id":"RFC5491","title":"GEOPRIV Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) Usage Clarification, Considerations, and Recommendations","authors":["J. Winterbottom","M. Thomson","H. Tschofenig"],"format":["ASCII","HTML"],"page_count":"28","pub_status":"PROPOSED STANDARD","status":"PROPOSED STANDARD","source":"Geographic Location\/Privacy","abstract":"The Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)\r\nspecification provides a flexible and versatile means to represent\r\nlocation information.  There are, however, circumstances that arise\r\nwhen information needs to be constrained in how it is represented.\r\nIn these circumstances, the range of options that need to be\r\nimplemented are reduced.  There is growing interest in being able to\r\nuse location information contained in a PIDF-LO for routing\r\napplications.  To allow successful interoperability between\r\napplications, location information needs to be normative and more\r\ntightly constrained than is currently specified in RFC 4119\r\n(PIDF-LO).  This document makes recommendations on how to constrain,\r\nrepresent, and interpret locations in a PIDF-LO.  It further\r\nrecommends a subset of Geography Markup Language (GML) 3.1.1 that is\r\nmandatory to implement by applications involved in location-based\r\nrouting.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]","pub_date":"March 2009","keywords":["[--------]","PIDF-LO","civic","geodetic","location","well-formed","GeoShape"],"obsoletes":[],"obsoleted_by":[],"updates":["RFC4119"],"updated_by":["RFC7459"],"see_also":[],"doi":"10.17487\/RFC5491","errata_url":"https:\/\/www.rfc-editor.org\/errata\/rfc5491"}