Hong-Yon,
You have raised few good points that we all are trying to find some
answers.
As you know, we are in the process of creating higher layer IS
requirements.
We had one conference call on Oct 11 and will have next call on Oct
25th.
Will appreciate if you let us know your thoughts on higher layer IS
requirements
including some query/response examples, if possible.
Thanks,
-Subir
Hong-Yon Lach wrote:
From: Yoshihiro Ohba <yohba@tari.toshiba.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:43:43 -0400
To: Hong-Yon Lach <hong-yon.lach@motorola.com>
Cc: Yoshihiro Ohba <yohba@tari.toshiba.com>, <STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
Subject: Re: [802.21] [Mipshop] Re: Architectural Considerations for Handover
InformationServices (was: Re: CARD Discussion Query Discussion)
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 08:14:10AM +0200, Hong-Yon Lach wrote:
I am claiming that if Solution 1 that provides less semantic query
(one may call it simple query) needs to carry x1 bytes of actual
information with its encoding overhead o1 bytes, while Solution 2 that
provides more semantic query (one may call it complex query) needs to
carry x2 (<x1) bytes of actual information with its encoding overhead
o2 (> o1) bytes, to make the same handover decision, then what we need
to compare in terms of information volume is [x1+o1 vs. x2+o2],
instead of [x1 vs. x2] or [o1 vs. o2]. And when we are discussing
information encoding, we are just discussing [o1 vs. o2], and choosing
a solution based only on this factor is wrong.
If we view Solution 1 as TLV-based and Solution 2 as XML-based, then I
think [x1 > x2] && [o1 < o2], and depending on how we encode XML,
diffence between o1 and o2 can be small.
[hong-yon] I think your analysis is misleading. First of all, why semantic
query cannot be carried out with TLV encoding? TLV has been used to convey
flexible payloads, which can be of different combination of information
elements. One example is the optional fields; another is that different
information elements have their identifiers to allow them to be flexibly
selected for exchange on a per-need (semantic) basis. Thus, there is no
reason that x1 and x2 are different! Besides, in the overheads, there is
more than just information encoding, there is also the information
structure.
I think if someone comes up with a complete solution that uses
TLV-encoding and also supports semantic query, that could be the best
solution. In fact I have been thinking about such a solution, but it
is just hard for me to come up (probably it is as hard as writing an
application program in assembly language). Just having information
element identifiers is not sufficient for semantic query.
Relationship among information elements also needs to be defined and
utilized for semantic query, and that is why schema is defined in
802.21.
[hong-yon] I wonder how complex we need for semantics in 802.21. It is not a
clear issue to me to make it a requirement for 802.21. I would like to ask
ourselves, what is the problem we are trying to solve, what complex semantic
query we are talking about in 802.21? This is getting pointless and tiring
in discussing the solution without a clear problem statement.
Regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba
|