[ticker-dev] Re: Elvin presence spec draft - request for comments

[David Arnold]

-->"Matthew" == Matthew Phillips <matthew.phillips at dsto.defence.gov.au> writes:

  Matthew> Good, because I wrote it early morning, semi-conscious, so
  Matthew> we're nicely balanced ;)

;-)

  Matthew> The problem of course is that we are overloading someone's
  Matthew> identify (static) with location (variable).

exactly.

  Matthew> In fact, this whole debate is tricky, because we want a way
  Matthew> of uniquely identifying people using some text that is
  Matthew> based on their attributes rather than a random string.

and not everyone is prepared to maintain their own domain in order to
get this ;-)

  Matthew> So, upshot is: a username/logical domain combo actually
  Matthew> seems to work.

agreed.

  Matthew> Yep, I agree we shouldn't require presence support for
  Matthew> using ticker effectively, and I think that a "Display-Name"
  Matthew> or somesuch field on ticker could be used to replace what
  Matthew> would be lost by using a domain-as-identity scheme.  I
  Matthew> could have username 'Matthew at dsto' with a display name of
  Matthew> "Matthew (at home)" or somesuch.

this at least makes identity a distinct field, while leaving the
semantics of "Matthew (at home)" a little murky/flexible ;-)

julian?  any suggestions for ontologically-correct naming here?  i'd
really like to publish the ticker-3.0 draft protocol ASAP ...

  Matthew> I'm viewing domains as sort of 'public buddy lists' - I
  Matthew> want to see everyone who's online at DSTO and I don't know
  Matthew> who they are (now, or in the future) so I subscribe that
  Matthew> domain. 

me too.  i like that level of abstraction.

  Matthew> In fact, if 'group' wasn't already used for referring to
  Matthew> ticker groups, I would have used that rather than domain,
  Matthew> since it's more in keeping with its function.

well -- while we all agreed on "group" for ticker, "channel" is still
possible.  perhaps it's worth using "channel" in ticker to support
this distinction?  i think i prefer "group" over "domain" enough to
move from "group" to "channel" for ticker.  maybe?

what other words might work to describe a collection of "buddy"s (i
fear that word is entrenched now) ?  i had a chat to Louise and we
came up with (in no particular order or recommendation):

    clan, tribe, gang, posse, pack, team

others? anyone?

  Matthew> Note that you guys are a serious worst-case scenario ;)

always ;-)

  Matthew> A ticker newbie probably wants to enter a username/domain
  Matthew> and automagically have everything else kick in. Later, they
  Matthew> can start messing with adding people/domains to the buddy
  Matthew> list, but this gives a low-overhead, useful starting point.

i defintely agree.  something automatic is really important.

  Matthew> In summary, I would still push for people to be in one
  Matthew> domain, but to have optional visiblilty of (and visibility
  Matthew> in) other domains.

i think that's reasonable.




d