Tony,
Thanks for the comments. More below...
On Apr 9, 2009, at 12:37 AM, Tony Li wrote:
Dow Street wrote:
But if the "where" name does not encode *any* information about
"how to get there", then it doesn't really have any location
semantics, right?
Does our mail address of
123 High Street,
Bigtown,
Green County,
Outer Luvania
Tell us *any* information about how to get there?
I think you can say there is a often a continuity convention in names
for sections of geographic landscapes. That is, someplace in Green
county is generally reachable from another place in Green country
without having to exit Green county. This is, of course, not always
the case (e.g. Alaska). There is also an implied hierarchy in the set
of names for map sections in this address, e.g. Bigtown is "in" Green
County. Based on these conventions, and given the name of the
location, one might say you could derive a loose path from your
present location in the landscape to the point named by this locator,
even without an full / explicit map. "First get to Outer Luvania,
then find Green County, etc.." I think this information constitutes
some notion of "how to get there". However, we may not want to call
it a "path", but more of a "plan for a path" that does not become an
actual path until we add a road sign that says "Bigtown over there".
If this (path) is what you are defining as information on "how to get
there", then I think we are in sync conceptually.
Seems to have a lot of location semantics tho, yes?
I would say it does. Specifically those semantics are:
- the (country, county, city, state, street, number) hierarchy of
names (where each level of names in the hierarchy is flat wrt to the
names of the others)
- the numerical, proximity semantics of the street number
R,
Dow
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
