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

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

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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>