Re: [Simple] Address and person URIs

[Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen at dynamicsoft.com>]

I'm fine to punt, but I think this is a case where the perfect is a 
serious enemy of the good.

I think that a service URI of the form:

uri:inperson

is sufficient, without any additional per-user data. We can leave it to 
the human to figure out how to resolve the URI. Indeed, the presentity 
placetype (home, work, etc.) would probably suffice, since  a watcher 
can ususally infer how to find them within that place. We just need a 
way to say, "come talk to me". Does that cover EVERY case? No way. Does 
it cover many of the important ones? Yes.

-Jonathan R.

Paul Kyzivat wrote:

> Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>
> > > Well, a place isn't always sufficient. We see this all the time in 
> > > the movies: "Meet me in the bar of tha Acme Hotel at 7pm on April 1, 
> > > 2005. I'll have a red carnation in my lapel."
> >
> >
> > I suspect that one of the desirable properties would be that the 
> > person doesn't change identifiers just because they changed location. 
> > If you don't do that, it will get very confusing - is this URI the 
> > same person at a different location or a completely different person? 
> > (Imagine a friend finder service that works in physical space.)
> >
> > There is also the issue that you now have two ways to represent 
> > "location of a presentity", as a URI or as PIDF-LO, with contact 
> > information also available as a vCard.
> >
> > > So we don't need a *globally* unique person identifier. We need a 
> > > person identifier that is locally unique in the context of the time 
> > > and location of the intended meeting. And the time is important too.
> > >
> > > The time we can deal with. With regular status it is NOW. We can use 
> > > timed-status to cover some other time.
> > >
> > > I don't think location has to be part of the Contact, as long as it 
> > > is provided as part of the (timed-)status along with the contact.
> > >
> > > Coming up with URIs for identifying people locally within a 
> > > particular time-space region sounds like future research. Sounds like 
> > > some sort of arbitary predicate would do the trick.
> >
> >
> > Do you want to define people by a game of twenty questions?
>
>
> Well, it would be easier if everyone just agreed to have a barcode 
> branded on their forehead and an RFID chip embedded in them, each 
> containing their UN assigned global person UUID.
>
> But I sense a lot of people don't want to be so easily or irrevokably 
> identifiable. So weak forms of identification may be all that is 
> generally acceptable. (Hence "I'll have a red carnation in my lapel" 
> rather than "The SSN on my forehead will be 123-56-7890.")
>
> Unfortunately, this doesn't lend itself well to URIs or URNs, because 
> the information isn't Unique.
>
> I think we continue to punt this one for now.
>
>     Paul

--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
jdrosen at dynamicsoft.com                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple