Location Information Interoperability of CAP and PIDF-LO for Early Warning Systems

351 views

Published on

Karl Wolf's presentation on "Location Information Interoperability of CAP and PIDF-LO for Early Warning Systems" at ISCRAM 2013 in Baden-Baden.

10th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management
12-15 May 2013, Baden-Baden, Germany

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
351
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • UGC (Universal Geographic Code)
  • Location Information Interoperability of CAP and PIDF-LO for Early Warning Systems

    1. 1. Institut fürComputertechnikICTInstitute ofComputer TechnologyLocation InformationInteroperability ofCAP and PIDF-LO forEarly Warning SystemsKarl Wolf
    2. 2. Institut für Computertechnik 2Overview Location information is the key information for emergencymanagement Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) is implemented by several EarlyWarning Systems CAP messages describe the affected area CAP alert messages can be delivered directly to alert recipients overvarious networks Location-aware receivers can determine, whether the alert is relevantfor the current location Internet devices are becoming increasingly location-aware Framework for a unified location system for the Internet was defined bythe Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Internet location services allow devices to acquire their current locationas Presence Information Data Format – Location Object (PIDF-LO) Location format interoperability of CAP and PIDF-LO is required
    3. 3. Institut für Computertechnik 3ArchitectureArchitecture implemented as prototype
    4. 4. Institut für Computertechnik 4Presence Information Data Format –Location Object (PIDF-LO) XML document defined by the IETF Geodetic and civic location supported Civic address: predefined types (country, A1-A6, street,house number, …) Geodetic location: various shapes (point, polygon, circle,ellipse, arc band, …) Central role in the IETF’s framework for Internetgeolocation (e.g. location configuration protocols) Adopted for next generation emergency calling inNorth America by the National Emergency NumberAssociation (NENA)
    5. 5. Institut für Computertechnik 5The Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) CAP 1.2 adopted by Organization for theAdvancement of Structured InformationStandards (OASIS) in 2010 XML data format for all kinds of alerts Affected area Textual description Geodetic shapes: circle and polygon Geocode: name value pair (no predefined names)
    6. 6. Institut für Computertechnik 6Geodetic Interoperability CAP and PIDF-LO are supporting geodeticlocation information Well known algorithms can be used Example: point-in-polygon query to determine,whether a point in PIDF-LO lies within ouroutside boundaries of a CAP polygon
    7. 7. Institut für ComputertechnikCivic Location Interoperability PIDF-LO is supporting civic addresses(predefined elements: country, street, etc.) CAP specification does not mention civicaddresses CAP has geocode elements (no predefinedelements) Structure of civic addresses is more complex How to figure out, whether a civic address liesinside an area?7
    8. 8. Institut für Computertechnik 8Civic Location Interoperability - Example<area><areaDesc>Santa Clarita Valley</areaDesc><geocode><valueName>UGC</valueName><value>CAZ088</value></geocode></area><cl:civicAddress xml:lang="en"><cl:country>US</cl:country><cl:A1>California</cl:A1><cl:A2>Los Angeles County</cl:A2><cl:A3>Santa Clarita</cl:A3><cl:RD>Railroad</cl:RD><cl:STS>Ave</cl:STS><cl:HNO>24875</cl:HNO><cl:PC>CA 91321</cl:PC></cl:civicAddress>Exemplary CAP area representation (left) and PIDF-LO civic address (right)
    9. 9. Institut für ComputertechnikOptions Forbid usage of civic addresses in PIDF-LO? PIDF-LO is typically generated by a different entity than CAP Civic addresses are also supported in the next generationemergency calling framework Civic addresses are suitable for certain scenarios (e.g. locationserver serving fixed subscriber line customers) Convert civic address to geodetic location? Geocoding service necessary Error-prone Include PIDF-LO civic address elements in CAP? New civic address element or full PIDF-LO inside CAP Usage of geocode element (used for prototype implementation)9
    10. 10. Institut für ComputertechnikExample<area><areaDesc>Santa Clarita</areaDesc><geocode><valueName>PIDF-LO</valueName><value>country="US";A1="California";A2="Los Angeles County";A3="Santa Clarita“</value></geocode></area>Area representation in CAP with geocode element containing PIDF-LOcivic address elements for interoperability.10
    11. 11. Institut für Computertechnik 11Conclusion IETF Internet geolocation makes devices location-awareand allows location-based services to benefit PIDF-LO was adopted for next generation emergency calling inNorth America Early warning could also benefit when CAP is disseminated toend devices – only affected people get notified Dissemination of warnings in geodetic as well as in civiclocation format is required CAP generators have no knowledge about the format thereceivers have configured Interoperability issue for civic addresses exists PIDF-LO civic address types would be required in CAP Further work is required to prevent differentimplementations on the Internet

    ×