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
- Defining "on the Internet" Dave Crocker
- Re: Defining "on the Internet" Tony Rutkowski
- Re: Defining "on the Internet" Dave Crocker
- Re: Defining "on the Internet" George Herbert
- Re: Defining "on the Internet" Dave Crocker
- Re: Defining "on the Internet" Tony Rutkowski
- Re: Defining "on the Internet" Robert A. Rosenberg
- Re: Defining "on the Internet" bukys
- Re: Defining "on the Internet" Stan Barber
- Re: Defining "on the Internet" Stan Barber
- Re: Defining "on the Internet" Daniel J. Weitzner
- Re: Defining "on the Internet" Don Jackson
- Re: Defining "on the Internet" Barry Shein