Subject: [iucg] working framework

From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:20:25 +0200

Dear friends,
the dispute over the IETF IDNA drains too much of our scarce time. It 
shows that there is an industry increasing influence, FLOSS already 
opposed in a recent DoS against the IETF list. The idea behind the 
IUCG is to stay independent from that internal dispute in being at an 
"w2w" (we to we or user to user, nousanous) level. The current IDNA 
analysis shows that the Internet actually misses a few key 
compenents, starting with the presentation layer.

However, it also shows that if encapsulating the Internet limited 
model into a more complete (and innovative, yet 25 years old) model, 
it is possible to tansparently obtain a brand new internet model. 
This is the Network Extended Model I propose you to work on, and to 
implement in using the Internet PLUS concept we already debbuged.

The target is not only to get a better international network system, 
but also to support the current evolution where :

- the digital convergence of all the computer (assisted) systems, 
media, applicances etc.
- starts meeting the emergence of the huge semantic effort carried by 
the JTC1/SC32 for example in metadata.

The proposition here is to further extend the NEM to try to build a 
"cartography" of the logic of the universe. Because we have reached a 
time where the true systemic of what we do (starting with the network 
bandwidth availability and routing) is to be approached on the basis 
of chaos theories and that we necessarily change of paradigm. We need 
intellectural room and appropriate images to think about it. We also 
need appropriate tools for the mathematic and semantic merge. This is 
why I suggest we engage into a Common Lisp study and 
investigation.  Focusing on interaction with context, speed, 
robustness, coherence, attractors, etc.

These are just ideas to see if there is an interest. And to decide if 
we can builing a thinking/working group on this or not.
jfc

---

From: Xavier Legoff <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:22:52 +0200

>
> At 15:20 17/04/2009, jefsey wrote:
>
Dear friends,
the dispute over the IETF IDNA drains too much of our scarce time. It shows
> that there is an industry increasing influence, FLOSS already opposed in a
> recent DoS against the IETF list. The idea behind the IUCG is to stay
> independent from that internal dispute in being at an "w2w" (we to we or
> user to user, nousanous) level. The current IDNA analysis shows that the
> Internet actually misses a few key compenents, starting with the
> presentation layer.
>

> However, it also shows that if encapsulating the Internet limited model
> into a more complete (and innovative, yet 25 years old) model, it is
> possible to tansparently obtain a brand new internet model. This is the
> Network Extended Model I propose you to work on, and to implement in using
> the Internet PLUS concept we already debbuged.

There would then be a need for clearer definitions? Or is it precisely what
you have in mind?

> The target is not only to get a better international network system, but
> also to support the current evolution where :
>

> - the digital convergence of all the computer (assisted) systems, media,
> applicances etc.
>
- starts meeting the emergence of the huge semantic effort carried by the
> JTC1/SC32 for example in metadata.
>

> "cartography" of the logic of the universe.

You mean you wish to give a try to your old ontography project? If I am
correct your first idea was to document the difference with a model and to
discuss a methodology? The first thing could then be to discuss the
difference betwen a model and a diagram? etc. in order to build a clear
terminology to associate with the ontology (as what is generally observed -
context - norms - truth) and the model (as what is specifically discussed -
uterance - standards - imagination)?

> Because we have reached a time where the true systemic of what we do
> (starting with the network bandwidth availability and routing) is to be
> approached on the basis of chaos theories and that we necessarily change of
> paradigm. We need intellectural room and appropriate images to think about
> it. We also need appropriate tools for the mathematic and semantic merge.
> This is why I suggest we engage into a Common Lisp study and investigation.
>  Focusing on interaction with context, speed, robustness, coherence,
> attractors, etc.

Interesting idea. But we would need a teacher.

XL

>
> These are just ideas to see if there is an interest. And to decide if we
> can builing a thinking/working group on this or not.
>
jfc