Subject: [Ecrit] Reminder: Virtual Interim Meeting

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:49:48 +0200

Hi all, 

Please keep our virtual interim meeting Thursday Feb. 11 8AM-10AM EST
(New York).

We plan to discuss the PSAP callback mechanism, see
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-psap-callback-01.txt,
and to make some progress on the solution front. 

The Webex info can be found below.  

Ciao
Hannes & Marc

-- WEBEX

 Date: Thursday, February 11, 2010
 Time: 8:00 am, Eastern Standard Time (New York, GMT-05:00)  Meeting
Number: 209 813 488  Meeting Password: ietf

 -------------------------------------------------------
 To join the online meeting (Now from iPhones too!)
 -------------------------------------------------------
 1. Go to
https://ciscosales.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?ED=133856902&UID=0&PW=NNjA
5ZTg4YzJm&RT=MiMxMQ%3D%3D
 2. Enter your name and email address.
 3. Enter the meeting password: ietf
 4. Click "Join Now".
 
 To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link:
 
https://ciscosales.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?ED=133856902&UID=0&PW=NNjA
5ZTg4YzJm&ORT=MiMxMQ%3D%3D
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
 ALERT:Toll-Free Dial Restrictions for (408) and (919) Area Codes
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
 
 The affected toll free numbers are: (866) 432-9903 for the San
Jose/Milpitas area and (866) 349-3520 for the RTP area.
 
 Please dial the local access number for your area from the list below:
 - San Jose/Milpitas (408) area: 525-6800
 - RTP (919) area: 392-3330
 
 -------------------------------------------------------
 To join the teleconference only
 -------------------------------------------------------
 1. Dial into Cisco WebEx (view all Global Access Numbers at
http://cisco.com/en/US/about/doing_business/conferencing/index.html
 2. Follow the prompts to enter the Meeting Number (listed above) or
Access Code followed by the # sign.
 
 San Jose, CA: +1.408.525.6800 RTP: +1.919.392.3330
 
 US/Canada: +1.866.432.9903 United Kingdom: +44.20.8824.0117
 
 India: +91.80.4350.1111 Germany: +49.619.6773.9002
 
 Japan: +81.3.5763.9394 China: +86.10.8515.5666
 
 -------------------------------------------------------
 For assistance
 -------------------------------------------------------
 1. Go to https://ciscosales.webex.com/ciscosales/mc
 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support".
 
 You can contact me at:
  [email-masked]
 1-919 476 7083 
 
 To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft
Outlook), click this link:
 
https://ciscosales.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?ED=133856902&UID=0&ICS=MI&
LD=1&RD=2&ST=1&SHA2=vAuFJ4sX5SuD8pTdUg8W6UR7Yr24ecYH0d3iPGYygGE=&RT=MiMx
MQ%3D%3D 
 
 The playback of UCF (Universal Communications Format) rich media files
requires appropriate players. To view this type of rich media files in
the meeting, please check whether you have the players installed on your
computer by going to
https://ciscosales.webex.com/ciscosales/systemdiagnosis.php
 
 Sign up for a free trial of WebEx
 http://www.webex.com/go/mcemfreetrial
 
 http://www.webex.com

 IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows
audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during
the session to be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically
consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, do
not join the session.

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:16:03 +0200

Hi all, 

Andrea suggested to also put the revision of the Service URN to the
agenda. He has updated the document but there are concerns from the side
of our Ads. Feedback from the group would also appreciated. 

Thoughts about the addition of the document for discussion to the
agenda? 

Ciao
Hannes

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>On Behalf Of ext Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
>Sent: 08 February, 2010 16:50
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [Ecrit] Reminder: Virtual Interim Meeting
>
>Hi all, 
>
>Please keep our virtual interim meeting Thursday Feb. 11 
>8AM-10AM EST (New York).
>
> The affected toll free numbers are: (866) 432-9903 for the 
>San Jose/Milpitas area and (866) 349-3520 for the RTP area.
> 
> 2. Follow the prompts to enter the Meeting Number (listed 
>above) or Access Code followed by the # sign.
> 
> To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example 
>Microsoft Outlook), click this link:
> 
> The playback of UCF (Universal Communications Format) rich 
>media files requires appropriate players. To view this type of 
>rich media files in the meeting, please check whether you have 
>the players installed on your computer by going to 
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that 
>allows audio and any documents and other materials exchanged 
>or viewed during the session to be recorded. By joining this 
>session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you 
>do not consent to the recording, do not join the session. 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ecrit mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:53:55 -0500

Since "shadow boxing" and "tea leaf reading" aren't particularly productive, would the ADs consider revealing those concerns? I'm not sure how else we can have a productive discussion that doesn't just tread over the same old ground.

Henning

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:45:10 -0700

I'm working on the assumption that the agenda for the call is text below. If there is more to the agenda, it never made it to the list. 

> and to make some progress on the solution front. 

For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:45:36 -0700

It has been pointed out that this virtual meeting did not get properly announced on the IETF list which brings up the question of if it should be canceled. 

I am asking the WG chairs to go ahead any run the meeting anyways but to be even more diligent than normal about assuming that the people on the phone call do not represent all the relevant opinions and any decisions need to be made and confirmed on the list. For controversial topics or things the chairs judge to have very weak consensus, the topics can be discussed again at the next IETF meeting where we can confirm the consensus and try and get to a stronger consensus.  I want meetings to be properly announced but I believe that running this meeting will help the WG get towards consensus on the callback issue and that the harm of canceling this meeting is greater than running it. My experience in this WG is that nearly all the people likely to come to this virtual meeting did receive the notification via the ECRIT list. If the the meeting topic was different, I might have come to a different conclusion about canceling it.

Cullen <RAI AD>

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:46:50 -0700

I spoke about the issues in a very concrete way at the last meeting - I'm really trying to avoid any tea leaf reading. Nothing new since then. I can try and reconstruct the state from that but if you already have the info from the last meeting, well no change since then.

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:14:29 +0200

Hi Henning, 

Cullen essentially pointed out that service classification is rather
complicated and we should consult some other folks outside the IETF
(since they have tried similar things already and failed). 

I then solicited more feedback from Lisa and see provided roughly the
following response: 

--- 

In effect, this actually starts to move into W3C Semantic Web territory,
thus I've cc'ed Mark Nottingham.  You could check out the W3C's pages on
ontology <http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/ontology> as well as
vertical apps <http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/applications> and
<http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/> -- it's in the
vertical apps that specific themed vocabularies get developed.  For
example, the city of Zaragoza developed an ontology for city services
<http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/Zaragoza/>

I believe many of these vocabularies get developed in vertical industry
consortia and for specific coordination activities.  For example, the
classifications of diseases was begun as a scholarly activity in the
18th century, and international uniform classification of causes of
death was adopted in 1853.  Different disease and cause--of-death
classifications have popped up in different countries and different
industries, and there have been constant and painful attempts to unify.
It is a tremendous amount of work to revise the list of causes of death
and when one does so, statistics change in ways that can't be compared
forward and backward.    For example --
see <http://wonder.cdc.gov/mortSQL.html>, where the datasets for two
very similar disease classification systems are completely disjoint.

Contrasting the classification of diseases to classification of
services: in the case of diseases, only professionals tend to know about
disease classification codes.  Thus, uniformity can be encouraged in
professional training.  New diseases are comparably rare; they are
studied carefully and there are recognized venues for analysing the type
and classification of new diseases.   In the case of services, we have a
free for all where anybody can invent a new service (hey, I'm now
offering custom knit sweater fit analyses at my yarn studio) and all
kinds of people are expected to search for them.

I believe the incredible range, scope and dynamism of classifying
services means that any vocabulary definition mechanism will be awfully
limited.

--- 

I have no good suggestion on how to reflect the feedback in these two
documents: 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-forte-ecrit-service-urn-policy 
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-forte-ecrit-service-classification

Maybe someone else in the working group has or maybe someone in the
application area can provide us with help. 

Ciao
Hannes

>From: ext Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: 08 February, 2010 17:54
>To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Reminder: Virtual Interim Meeting
>
>Since "shadow boxing" and "tea leaf reading" aren't 
>particularly productive, would the ADs consider revealing 
>those concerns? I'm not sure how else we can have a productive 
>discussion that doesn't just tread over the same old ground.
>
>Henning
>
>> agenda. He has updated the document but there are concerns from the 
>> side of our Ads. Feedback from the group would also appreciated.
>> 
>>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
>>> Behalf Of ext Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
>8AM-10AM EST 
>http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-psap-callback-01.txt
>>> , and to make some progress on the solution front.
>>> 
>>> The playback of UCF (Universal Communications Format) rich media 
>>> files requires appropriate players. To view this type of rich media 
>>> files in the meeting, please check whether you have the players 
>>> installed on your computer by going to 
>>> audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed 
>>> during the session to be recorded. By joining this session, you 
>>> automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to 
>>> the recording, do not join the session.
>>>

---

From: "Andrea G. Forte" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:42:11 -0500

Hannes,

while I see Lisa's point, I do not think that the solution is to just 
let "others" deal with it or not to deal with it at all. Building one 
comprehensive list of all possible items is not possible and that is why 
we define a way for other people to add new terms (policy-urn draft) to 
the list. Whomever will try to tackle this issue will face the same 
kinds of problems.
Since the IETF is defining protocols and standards for the provisioning 
of location-based services I think it makes sense for the IETF to pave 
the road for defining new labels. Yes, there are many issues involved in 
defining new terms and in deciding how to categorize such terms but 
there is where the "expert" review comes into help. It would be up to 
the expert reviewer(s) as such to be able to mediate and assign the 
correct label to the correct category and perhaps to decide how to 
"import" previously defined terms.

We need something that is consistent among service providers. If not, 
let's not talk service URNs and LoST any more and let's just go back to 
Google local search.

-Andrea

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~andreaf 
<http://www.cs.columbia.edu/%7Eandreaf/>

On 2/10/2010 3:14 PM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
> ontology<http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/ontology>  as well as
> vertical apps<http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/applications>  and
> see<http://wonder.cdc.gov/mortSQL.html>, where the datasets for two
>>>> Hannes&  Marc
>>>> Please dial the local access number for your area from the
>>>>          
>> list below:
>>