Subject: [VCARDDAV] thing, device, application

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 10:23:46 -0600

On the design team call just now, Cyrus Daboo said that KIND:thing might
be too broad, and pointed to RFC 4519 as one approach to more narrow
definitions. The two object classes from that spec which seem most
appropriate (at least for the XMPP usage I've been referencing) are
'applicationProcess' and 'device':

   The 'applicationProcess' object class definition is the basis of an
   entry that represents an application executing in a computer system.

   The 'device' object class is the basis of an entry that represents an
   appliance, computer, or network element.

Both of those are sourced from X.521:

   The Application Process object class is used to define entries
   representing application processes. An application process is an
   element within a real open-system which performs the information
   processing for a particular application (see ITU-T Rec. X.200 |
   ISO/IEC 7498-1).

   The Device object class is used to define entries representing
   devices. A device is a physical unit which can communicate, such as
   a modem, disk drive, etc.

The Application Process definition from X.521 references X.200, which
says in part:

###

4.2 Open System Interconnection Environment

4.2.1 In the concept of OSI, a real system is a set of one or more
computers, associated software, peripherals, terminals, human operators,
physical processes, information transfer means, etc., that forms an
autonomous whole capable of performing information processing and/or
information transfer.

4.2.2 An application process is an element within a real open system
which performs the information processing for a particular application.

4.2.3 Application processes can represent manual processes, computerized
processes or physical processes.

4.2.4 Some examples of application processes that are applicable to this
open system definition are the following:

a) a person operating a banking terminal is a manual application process;

b) a FORTRAN program executing in a computer center and accessing a
remote database is a computerized application-process; the remote
database management systems server is also an application-process; and

c) a process control program executing in a dedicated computer attached
to some industrial equipment and linked into a plant control system is a
physical application-process.

4.2.5 An application process represents a set of resources, including
processing resources, within a real open system that may be used to
perform a particular information processing activity. An application
process may organize its interactions with other application processes
in whatever way is necessary to achieve a particular information
processing goal: no constraints are imposed by this Reference Model
either on the form of these interactions or on the possible
relationships that may exist between them.

###

Personally I find it unhelpful in the vCard context to include people in
the category of application processes, but if we say that an
'applicationProcess' is a computerized application process then I think
it would fit the XMPP use case that's currently deployed. (The 'device'
object class identifies hardware, so it doesn't fit the current usage
quite as well.)

I'd be happy to define vCard KINDs for both 'applicationProcess' (or
just 'application') and 'device' if folks think that would be useful
(with the proviso that they would be defined as computing applications
and computing devices, e.g. as distinct from mechanical devices like
elevators or cars or whatever).

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Likepeng <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 00:57:54 +0000

I would prefer to keep the "thing", instead of "applicationProcess" and "device". 

In my opinion, broad definition is better than narrow definition. For example, if it is a building, it can't be covered by either "applicationProcess" or "device".

Thanks,

Kind Regards
Kepeng
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 12:24 AM
To: CardDAV
Subject: [VCARDDAV] thing, device, application

###

###

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

_______________________________________________
VCARDDAV mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 08:55:26 -0400

> In my opinion, broad definition is better than narrow definition. For example, if it is a building, it can't be covered by either "applicationProcess" or "device".

Then why not make it even broader and call it "anything"? (rhetorical
question, sorry)

The values we define need to be guided by intended usage. I've heard two
intended usages: identifying servers and identifying schedulable
resources. These different could require different KIND values, so a
broad definition like "thing" could be counter-productive.

I'd be very cautious about defining something broader than what we need.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:59:48 -0400

> Then why not make it even broader and call it "anything"? (rhetorical

Hm.  Rhetorical, maybe, but you've made me think of something, so I'll ask it:
Is there value in having a "KIND" that *explicitly* says, "This does
not fit into any other 'KIND'." ?

In other words, might it sometimes be important to make a distinction
between not specifying a KIND, and specifying that this is explicitly
NOT one of those other defined KINDs ?  To make it clear that we
didn't just leave it off.  (I don't know the answer to this; I'm
asking the implementors.)

[BTW, every time I see "Kind", I think German......]

Barry

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 09:30:38 -0600

> I'd be very cautious about defining something broader than what we need.

Simon, I find the arguments you and Cyrus have provided persuasive. I'm
now more comfortable with KIND:application for the XMPP use case. (Yes,
we might want to define subtypes even for applications.) If people have
use cases for KIND:device or KIND:vehicle or whatever, then I think they
can define those separately.

One possible concern is a proliferation of KIND values. But I don't
actively worry about that, and I'd rather label things accurately.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:19:56 -0400

Hi Peter,

> actively worry about that, and I'd rather label things accurately.

Hrmm, so I wonder if we start re-using LDAP objectClasses for KIND, might 
it not be better to tackle the last item on our current charter: "LDAP 
mapping to the new vCard format without loss of data.".

I am thinking that objectClass applicationProcess probably has a whole 
bunch of attributes specific to it in the LDAP world and we should map 
those over.

That also begs the question of whether KIND should have a direct 
relationship with LDAP objectClasses.

So maybe we need to think more closely about the whole LDAP<->vcard thing 
and decide how far down that road we want to go...

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:25:28 -0600

On 7/6/11 10:19 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> --On July 6, 2011 9:30:38 AM -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hrmm, so I wonder if we start re-using LDAP objectClasses for KIND,
> might it not be better to tackle the last item on our current charter:
> "LDAP mapping to the new vCard format without loss of data.".
> 
> So maybe we need to think more closely about the whole LDAP<->vcard
> thing and decide how far down that road we want to go...

Right, but that's a large task and I'm not sure that there's energy for
it. The KIND:application definition would be inspired by LDAP but would
not require a complete mapping. Or at least that's how I see it with my
individual hat on...

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 15:10:14 -0600

> actively worry about that, and I'd rather label things accurately.

I've posted version -02 of draft-saintandre-vcard-thing with the change
from "thing" to "application".

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:46:25 -0400

> from "thing" to "application".

(It seems to now be called draft-saintandre-vcarddav-thing...)

The changes look super good to me. I love it. This is good to go.

Simon

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:27:34 -0400

> from "thing" to "application".

99.9% OK.  Just one thing... um... application:

   Because software applications do not have work places and personal
   lives, it makes no sense to include the "work" and "home" values of
   the TYPE parameter in an application's vCard

Yes, but:

   The properties included in an application's vCard apply to one of the
   following:
...
   o  A person or role that maintains the application (e.g., the TEL,
      EMAIL, and IMPP properties might represent ways to contact a
      server administrator).

Mightn't the server administrator, especially some guy running an
experimental service in his basement, have "work" and "home" phone
numbers and postal, IM, and email addresses?

Barry

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:38:43 -0600

> numbers and postal, IM, and email addresses?

Hmm. I was thinking along the lines of <[email-masked]> -- roles, not
individuals. But I didn't express that assumption in the text.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:46:44 -0400

> individuals. But I didn't express that assumption in the text.

I know, but that's why I pointed out the guy with the experimental
server.  We see a lot of freeware with personal (individual) email
addresses as contact points.  We shouldn't make any assumptions about
roles vs individuals.

b

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:46:25 -0600

> addresses as contact points.  We shouldn't make any assumptions about

True. I'll fix that up in the next version.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Likepeng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 01:55:19 +0000

> from "thing" to "application".

It is good to make the value more specific, compared with "thing".

But on the other hand, we lose the opportunity to represent "Device", "Building" or others.

Do we need other drafts to address the others? Or keep them as unspecified.

Thanks,
Kind Regards
Kepeng

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:49:53 -0600

> Do we need other drafts to address the others? Or keep them as unspecified.

So far I don't see a strong demand for those KIND values, but if someone
wants to write an Internet-Draft then feel free. :)

/psa

---

From: Likepeng <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 01:34:27 +0000

> from "thing" to "application".

I think we need to change the document name and document title from
"thing" to "application".

But this can be done when it becomes the WG draft.

Kind Regards
Kepeng

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:53:48 -0600

> But this can be done when it becomes the WG draft.

Right, I couldn't do that after the -00 deadline passed. :)