Re: [art] [arch-d] BCP 190, draft-nottingham-for-the-users, and a generalization

[Guntur Wiseno Putra <[e-mail]>]

Dear architecture-discuss,

(There are things need to correct on * Note)

To share what I have found out: if such public installations inspire/is
about exploring musicality of diferent architectural features --as it was
attempted by "Building Music" of Electronic Visual Laboratory UIC:


https://www.evl.uic.edu/entry.php?id=1985


*Note:
- There is a correction for Daria Tsoupikova e-mail address of my previous
messages on Marcos Novak'"Liquid Architecture in Cyberspace"
- Should I add CC: [e-mail] as it is of the "Building Music"
page which may have importances.


Regard,
Guntur Wiseno Putra





Dear architecture-discuss,



To share what I have found out: if such public installations inspire/is
about exploring musicality of diferent architectural features --as it was
attempted by "Building Music" of Electronic Visual Laboratory UIC:


https://www.evl.uic.edu/entry.php?id=1985


*Note: There is a correction for Daria Tsoupikova e-mail address of my
previous messages...


Regard,
Guntur Wiseno Putra



Pada Minggu, 11 Agustus 2019, Guntur Wiseno Putra <[e-mail]>
menulis:

> Dear architecture-discuss,
>
>
>
> To share what I have found out: if such public installations inspire/is
> about exploring musicality of diferent architectural features --as it was
> attempted by "Building Music" of Electronic Visual Laboratory UIC:
>
>
> https://www.evl.uic.edu/entry.php?id=1985
>
>
> *Note: There is a correction for Daria Tsoupikova e-mail address of my
> previous messages...
>
>
> Regard,
> Guntur Wiseno Putra
>
> Pada Minggu, 11 Agustus 2019, Guntur Wiseno Putra <[e-mail]>
> menulis:
>
>> Dear architecture-discuss,
>>
>> Forgive me for typing errors in previous message...
>>
>> An alternative link to the posting on Marcos Novak's "Liquid Architecture
>> in Cyberspace" at public@[e-mail] I mentioned
>> earlier is
>>
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-informationarchi
>> tecture/2019May/0000.html
>>
>> (which was "403 Forbidden: Request forbidden by administrative rules" the
>> last time I checked up minutes ago)
>>
>> Or, if going directly toward the text:
>>
>> https://www.evl.uic.edu/datsoupi/coding/readings/1991_Novak_Liquid.pdf
>>
>> Thank to Martin Dodge for suggesting Marcos Novak's architecture in
>> www.cybergeography.org bringing me to Daria Tsoupukiva's lecture
>> providing the reading...
>>
>>
>>
>> Regard,
>> Guntur Wiseno Putra
>>
>> Pada Minggu, 11 Agustus 2019, Guntur Wiseno Putra <[e-mail]>
>> menulis:
>>
>>> Dear architecture-discuss,
>>>
>>> An alternative link to the posting on Marcos Nocak'S "Liquid
>>> Architecture in Cyberspace" at public@[e-mail]  I
>>> mentioned earlier is
>>>
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-informationarchi
>>> tecture/2019May/0000.html
>>>
>>> (which was "403 Forbidden: Request forbidden by administrative rules"
>>> the last time I checked up minutes ago)
>>>
>>> Or, if going directly toward the text:
>>>
>>> https:///www.evl.uic.edu/datsoupi/coding/readings/Marcos_Novak_
>>> Liquid.pdf
>>>
>>> Thank to Martin Dodge for suggesting Marcos Novak's architecture in
>>> www.cybergeography.org bringing me to Daria Tsoupukiva's lecture
>>> providing the reading...
>>>
>>> Regard,
>>> Gubtur Wiseno Putra
>>>
>>> Pada Minggu, 11 Agustus 2019, Guntur Wiseno Putra <[e-mail]>
>>> menulis:
>>>
>>>> Dear architecture-discuss,
>>>>
>>>> Such co-presences of which architecture is part of: if we attempt to
>>>> think of its relation with other human experiences on poetry, on poetics,
>>>> on a spirit invoked to make comprehensible a poetic fact, to get toward an
>>>> understanding of cyberspace architecture, of "Liquid Architecture in
>>>> Cyberspace" (Marcos Novak, 1991)
>>>>
>>>> I suggested as a reading to [e-mail] at
>>>> which there is the web-address to the Novak's work (posted at 12 May 2019):
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/mid/CAKi_AEu%252BK6XUb94zR7-9fQDq0Hy9JP0Zy
>>>> [e-mail];list=public-informationarchitecture
>>>> Regard,
>>>>
>>>> Guntur Wiseno Putra
>>>>
>>>> Pada Rabu, 24 Juli 2019, Guntur Wiseno Putra <[e-mail]>
>>>> menulis:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear architecture-discuss,
>>>>> & John,
>>>>>
>>>>> To share what might be inspiring...
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to propose what should be understood as "concept", "percept"
>>>>> & "affect", thus as "philosophy" & "art", Deleuze & Guattari ("What is
>>>>> Philosophy?") mentioned architecture as the first art as art begins with
>>>>> house: that of which "the most scientific architecture continually produces
>>>>> and unifies planes and sections... it could be defined as "frame" with a
>>>>> connection among various frames oriented differently, applied to other
>>>>> arts...(There is) a composite system consisting of points and
>>>>> counterpoints... (there is) a matter of sensations (percepts and affects)
>>>>> combined... (While) the system still needs a composition plane run
>>>>> "deframing" opening ways from house territory to city-cosmos, the system in
>>>>> which there are cosmic forces to create new affects...".
>>>>>
>>>>> There is "asthetic composition" as the working of sensation which is,
>>>>> so they said, the definition of art...
>>>>>
>>>>> Regard,
>>>>> Guntur Wiseno Putra
>>>>>
>>>>> Pada Selasa, 23 Juli 2019, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> menulis:
>>>>>
>>>>>> John --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's going to take a while for me to formulate my thoughts around
>>>>>> what you say below. To make sure I understand the class of constraints
>>>>>> you're concerned about below, can you clarify whether you think they apply
>>>>>> to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    - Documents like BCP 200, RFC 2804, and BCP 188?
>>>>>>    - Documents like BCP 9 and BCP 92?
>>>>>>    - Documents like BCP 25, BCP 54, and BCP 83?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You might see an unstated agenda in the categories of documents I
>>>>>> list above, so I'll state it explicitly: in the general case, one person's
>>>>>> important protections against a tragedy of the commons is another person's
>>>>>> annoying impediment to be ignored and defeated. I get that not all of the
>>>>>> above read on protocol design; but they do share the common feature that
>>>>>> they've gone through the IETF consensus process (at least to the degree
>>>>>> that such a process existed at the time of their respective publications).
>>>>>> If we're going to carefully parse out the meanings of some of them as the
>>>>>> will of the community while treating others as light guidelines to be
>>>>>> ignored when they become cumbersome, we're going to need to agree on a
>>>>>> pretty bright line that divides those categories.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/23/19 08:37, John C Klensin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (copying architecture-discuss because the comment I'm about to
>>>>>> make is an architectural issue and because
>>>>>> draft-nottingham-for-the-users is under discussion there.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A late colleague, much loved by some of us, used to claim (much
>>>>>> more elegantly than I can manage) that one of the reasons the
>>>>>> ARPANET and then the Internet protocols had succeeded and much
>>>>>> of what was seen as competitive alternatives had not, was that
>>>>>> our efforts focused on pragmatic, working protocols and
>>>>>> implementations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The other folks had developed a culture of formalisms, models,
>>>>>> and stated design principles.  They then tried to develop
>>>>>> protocols that fit into the boxes and categories of those
>>>>>> formalisms, models, and design principles.    When they
>>>>>> discovered that something didn't fit, they needed to either
>>>>>> invent kludges or other ways of getting square pegs into round
>>>>>> holes, go back and revise models and guidance before moving
>>>>>> forward, or consider and make exceptions (which often required
>>>>>> first figuring out how to make an exception and developing
>>>>>> procedures for that).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One difficulty is that the above can waste a lot of time.
>>>>>> Another is that it can distort protocol design, if only because
>>>>>> forcing square pegs into round holes tends to be hard on both
>>>>>> the pegs and the holes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In many or most fields of application, the nature of engineering
>>>>>> involves seeing and understanding a range of tradeoffs and then
>>>>>> doing design work that reflects a carefully-chosen balance among
>>>>>> them.  Give design elegance absolute priority over structural
>>>>>> issues and buildings and bridges fall down.  IMO, we need to
>>>>>> think, and keep thinking, about systems and tradeoffs.  That, in
>>>>>> turn, means that statements like these that can be interpreted
>>>>>> in absolute terms, even if we mostly agree with them, should be
>>>>>> packaged as general guidelines and not BCPs to which everything
>>>>>> done in the future is required to either conform or to try to
>>>>>> figure out how to appeal to a higher authority.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not at all convinced that the proposal that was summarized
>>>>>> an ARTAREA yesterday and that is seen as requiring an exception
>>>>>> to BCP 190 is a good idea.  But I think our time would be better
>>>>>> spent, and the Internet more efficiently made better, discussing
>>>>>> the strengths, weaknesses, and alternatives to that idea rather
>>>>>> than debating the reach and appropriateness of BCP 190 under
>>>>>> various circumstances.   Long term and more generally, I think
>>>>>> that suggests seeing BCP 190 not as a particular set of
>>>>>> principles and rules but as an example of something we don't
>>>>>> want to do to ourselves again as a BCP (or as something that
>>>>>> gets enough of an IAB stamp of approval that people will later
>>>>>> argue MUST (or SHOULD) be conformed to.  Again, restated as
>>>>>> general guidance with the assumption that there will be
>>>>>> exceptions and cases not considered, I don't have much of a
>>>>>> problem.    If that shoe fits  draft-nottingham-for-the-users,
>>>>>> so be it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    john
>>>>>>
>>>>>> p.s. I don't mean to pick on Mark here.   While these two
>>>>>> documents coming up at the same time was handy, I think the
>>>>>> problem is general and that there are far worse examples
>>>>>> (examples of which he is not an author) than either of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> art mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>