Re: Defining "on the Internet"

Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> Tue, 16 August 1994 01:12 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15673; 15 Aug 94 21:12 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15669; 15 Aug 94 21:12 EDT
Received: from lists.psi.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22009; 15 Aug 94 21:12 EDT
Received: by lists.psi.com (5.65b/SMI-4.1.3-PSI) id AA10682; Mon, 15 Aug 94 19:32:24 -0400
Return-Path: <bzs@world.std.com>
Received: from psi.com by lists.psi.com (5.65b/SMI-4.1.3-PSI) id AA10674; Mon, 15 Aug 94 19:32:09 -0400
Received: from ftp.std.com by psi.com (4.1/2.1-PSI/PSINet) id AA26347; Mon, 15 Aug 94 19:32:01 EDT
Received: from world.std.com by ftp.std.com (8.6.8.1/Spike-8-1.0) id TAA01722; Mon, 15 Aug 1994 19:31:24 -0400
Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA08030; Mon, 15 Aug 1994 19:31:21 -0400
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 19:31:21 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
Message-Id: <199408152331.AA08030@world.std.com>
To: bukys@cs.rochester.edu
Cc: dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu, amr@isoc.org, bauer@tig.com, schwartz@latour.cs.colorado.edu, com-priv@psi.com, inet-marketing@einet.net, bukys@cs.rochester.edu
In-Reply-To: <199408151720.NAA19317@slate.cs.rochester.edu> (bukys@cs.rochester.edu)
Subject: Re: Defining "on the Internet"

The problem with categorizations are that they tend to be viewed
differently depending on why you want to categorize. Put another way,
before one tries to create an answer it's good to nail down the
question first. There may be more than one question involved here so
it might require more than one answer.

Technical people will see this one way, business people see it
another, and information gatherers (govt, journalists) will either see
it another way or go with one of the other categories depending on the
particular context, or all of the above.

So one question is: Is it reasonable to try to create one set of
categorizations? Or might we need a few, not many, that view this
particular universe according to various reasonable taxonomies.

Just to clarify those thoughts let me take a stab and I readily admit
these are straw men:

1. Technical

	Use Dave Crocker's as presented here with whatever
	polishing occurs. We're getting primarily technical
	input, ie, people who want to classify based on how
	the wires and protocols are being used.

2. Business

	Manufacturers - RBOCs, IXCs, cisco (?)

	Wholesale - Alternet, PSI, ANS

	Retail - World, Netcom

	Distributors - CIX (?)

	Service - Clarinet

	Franchisers - must be someone or will be soon enough.

	Educational & Charitable - (we know who they are)

etc. tho I don't think there are many etc's. (words like "integrator"
come to mind, perhaps that's what I have labelled up there as
"Wholesale" tho it seems there oughta be wholesalers.)


Obviously some organizations fall into more than one category but
that's generally only a problem when technical people who like to see
things like this be mathematically tight (no or very few exceptions)
judge the categorizations. We all know that Sears is a retail
operation. We also wouldn't be the slightest bit disturbed to hear
they wholesale their Kenmore appliance lines. That's life, they're
just general categorizations. Oftentimes the companies themselves help
you refine this as they form internal subsidiaries (eg, UUNET vs
Alternet specifically, SprintLink vs Sprint the IXC.)


3. Industrial (ie, govt categorizations)

	Probably broken down more by size, number of employees,
	business categories (see 2), corporate organization, etc.
	That is, economic impact considerations and niches. These
	get multi-dimensional fast but it's worthwhile considering
	the problem for a moment.

I don't think there's a lot more needed for such a taxonomy. By and
large journalists will use one of the above as suitable. Consumers
will probably be mostly interested in business categories (2). etc.

Just a thought. But perhaps it's quixotic to look for one right answer
where perhaps three will do a better job. We can handle it.

I *don't* mean this is open-ended, just that a few ways to look at the
same data might be more useful, like three or four. Anyhow, I think
looking around at other industries that's the way it's done. I'm sure
aerospace engineers taxonomize their industry differently than
airlines and govt also, eg.

        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD