Mail IAB

I sent the following memo on Monday, August 29, 2022 to the Internet Architecture Board (iab@iab.org) as part of my preparation of an IRTF private subission Draft on the Global Communities normative support.

<quote>

subject 

Global communities, benefiting humanity

Dear IAB Chair and Members, Dear IRTF Chair,

Introduction

Today, ten years ago, on August 29, 2012, the IETF published RFC 6852, which is a statement that was signed by the leaders of information related SDOs (IEEE Standards Association, IAB, IETF, Internet Society, and W3C), thereby affirming the importance of a jointly developed set of principles and establishing a modern paradigm for global, open standards. These principles have become known as the "OpenStand" principles that the IETF has since then conformed to.

I appealed RFC 6852 on July 8, 2013, in order to put down a marker. This was because of its last and, therefore, most important demand for collective empowerment is to strive "to contribute to the creation of global communities, benefiting humanity". I wished that we could in due course clarify what a "global community, benefiting humanity" normatively means as well as what its due creation process is.

The IAB correctly interpreted my appeal as a call for the creation of an inter-SDO procedure to maintain the RFC 6852 principles and allow civil society, governments, and international organizations to “sign on” to these principles. It also evaluated that "a formal appeal" was "the wrong mechanism to achieve these goals" (as "appeals are to bring to light and correct errors in process and/or substance"). Neither was alleged. Therefore, no action was needed by the IAB as a formal response to my appeal. IAB, however, concluded in welcoming "Future suggestions from the community...through mail to the IAB <iab at iab.org> or through the RFC publication process".

This mail follows from that IAB invitation. It concerns my plan for an independent submission to introduce, on an exploratory basis, the concepts of two correlated global communities:

• "Beyond the wall Researchers" (as per G7 Academies of Sciences)
• and "IUsers" (information users, further to the recent ISO 24413:2022 standard).

Global communities

RFC 6852 addresses "Global Communities" as important issues, but it does not document them. Therefore, I need a definition. The term "global community" is used in nine other RFCs with two meanings:

• the « IETF global community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers producing technical specifications for the evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth operation of the Internet » (RFC 1560, RFC 3233, RFC 7989, RFC 8023, RFC 8837) to the benefit of end users.
• a way to allow people to go/become global (RFC 2150, RFC 3098, RFC 3709, RFC 8073) (for the better or worse 😊) in order to be able to share in a global standardization along the same researched « communitying ».

This means that an RFC 6852 "global community" (IETF), through a standardization paradigm shared with other information oriented SDOs and users "global communities",

• could be characterized from the mutual tension of its members toward the resolution of a/their common diktyologic (from diktyo: network) class of networked constraints (i.e. a normative tensegrity).
• should in turn be able to foster other/new global communities benefiting (or being protected) from new forms of open communitying that is extended to new areas; and to participate - along the OpenStand principles - in their local or global standardization process.

"Beyond the wall Researchers"

https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2019/05/g7-science-academies-release-statements-on-science-and-trust-artificial-intelligence-citizen-science :

“WASHINGTON – Today, the national science academies of the G-7 countries issued three joint statements to their respective governments in order to inform discussions during the G-7 summit to be held in August in France as well as to inform the ongoing policymaking. In the statements, the academies call for strategies to maintain trust in science, manage the societal benefits and risks related to artificial intelligence, and maximize the benefits of citizen science in the Internet era.”

https://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/rapport/Citizen_G7_2019_EN.pdf

« Citizen science is by definition carried out by citizens who are not « scientific professionals ». It is changing rapidly, as a result of the democratization of knowledge, new and faster communication technologies and increased open access to information. »

« A first - and major - component of citizen science is the 21st century version of the long established « Community-Based Participatory Research ». CBPR is usually performed by people with little formal scientific training participating in research projects coordinated by trained experts. It now takes the form of many projects across the world involving millions of people and billions of data items collected. »

« A second emerging component involves individuals having a solid scientific background, but who are working outside the walls of the usual professional research systems. They do science in public or private virtual communities or in private settings. This category of citizen science is referred to, here, as “Beyond The Walls Research” (BTWR). »

« In the present Internet era, the potential value of these approaches to research is high: CBPR may contribute to improving public understanding of science and the scientific method, and can thus play a role in democratizing knowledge and learning. BTWR offers an opportunity to advance knowledge and innovation ***in ways that were previously inaccessible*** to the academic, government or industrial organizations of research, and constitutes an opportunity – widely used by industry - to discover talented individuals outside the standard research system. »

The ways of the BTWR community depend on Internet-related methods. In particular, the way this research can be remotely practiced in trust between the members of the research groups sharing access through and to private “nebulars” of archives and data by opposition to the open web. There is an urgent need for standards in this “neb” (virtual glocal networks or closed webs) area. This need is not unique to BTWR, but the BTWR global community may include unique capacities for innovation, scientific testing, and sophisticated evaluation in that area, introducing the extended and versatile concept of "Glocal Communities".

Note: An academic phrase for “beyond the walls” is “extra muros” in Latin, which can be abbreviated as “XMR” leading to “XMRGC” as a more compact and fancier logo.

"IUsers"

ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies (ISO member bodies). International organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work. ISO closely collaborates with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of electrotechnical standardization.

On May 20, 2022, ISO published the ISO 24143:2022 standard, which defines the normative terms, concepts, and principles for an “Information Governance” understood as a strategic framework for governing information assets across an entire organization in order to enhance coordinated support for the achievement of business outcomes and obtain assurance that the risks to its information, and thereby the operation capabilities and integrity of the organization, are effectively identified and managed.

This document was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and documentation.

• ISO 24143 understands, and its normative terms consider, information as an enterprise ***asset*** that is indispensable to support business processes and, therefore, a foundation for the success of any business activities. Due to the numerous existing and emerging forms and uses of information and information-related risks, organizations often struggle with implementing consistent and comprehensive systems to store, retrieve, share, and analyze information.

This certainly matches the RFC6852 concept of “embracing a modern paradigm for standards where the economics of global markets, fueled by technological advancements, drive the global deployment of standards, regardless of their formal status ».

• However, for online enterprises, information is also a ***commodity*** the scientific nature of which is still undefined outside communications and IA.

In focusing on the governance of “information data”, this new ISO standard of reference, which is to be actively worked on from now on, ignores both networking and communications aspects (the terms are not even used) and their impacts (internal and external) on information.

We have two aspects of information that require a solid vision and strategy for Information Governance that will support the business process:

• at a strategic level, including digital transformation initiatives: « many governmental and non-governmental organizations worldwide already perceive the necessity and understand the benefits of coordinating at a strategic level the efforts of multiple information-, data-, and knowledge-related disciplines » (ISO 24143)

• at an operational level, including a better understanding of the scientific and technological nature of information, which requires a more extended terminology and conceptualization than those introduced by ISO 24143.

To reach that normalization coherence, the “interactive information commodity” must adequately complete the “archived information asset”.

I call the “IUsers Global Community” (IUGC) those Internet Users who perceive information as an operational, interactive space that they also have to govern. The members of this IUGC need to better understand who they are and standardize their domain in a way supported by the ISO Information Governance rules, but also most probably call on members of the XMRCG to research the new capabilities of the information material they will probably uncover. I am referring here to areas such as fundamental information nature, information negentropy, the metaverse, syllodata (data between data), interligence (that by which everything is linked), intellition (that is abduced from information), etc., etc.

Introducing two Global communities

It is advisable to simultaneously introduce two “global communities” (and it would be good if other comparable projects arose) because RFC 6852 states that the IETF and other SDOs are to “contribute to the creation of global communities (plural), benefiting humanity.”. Contributing to “global communities” is, therefore, a general mission that the IETF has endorsed, should train into, and build tools and expertise for (either internally or in partnership, as in the case of the IANA that already services both the IETF and the Internet User global communities).

The areas, terms, concepts, and principles of reference of the two “global communities”, which I am considering, intersect and must be kept consistent while considering their most probable terminological, conceptual, and architectonic dissemination among future IETF RFCs, public and scientific, national and international, nomologies as well as in other “global communities” charters (in support of – or embedded into – their foundational frames of references that must be kept consistent for standardization consistency)

Intercommunity/interdisciplinary ontodiktyology

To do so, their areas, discussion of principles, and research must abide by common multidisciplinary and adequately polynymous open architectonies (community foundational common frame of reference) documented throughout a common global community’s network of specialized term and concept ontologies (ontodiktyology). The target is:

• to permit and support interdisciplinary and intercommunity modeling,
• to explore noematic issues and related networking, and
• to help welcome new global communities with their own fringe vocabulary and conceptual extensions.

Private submission propositions

My intent is to introduce a private submission (that, therefore, does not yet engage the IETF) to explore the fulfilling of RFC 6852 ambition for the IETF and other standardization global communities to take advantage of their own 45 years of methodologic and management experience and of their OpenStand principles to contribute to the creation of global communities, benefiting humanity, on a regular basis, as new possibilities arise in the diktyocenic (multidomain networking banalization) anthropobotic (men/machine) context.

To experiment the mutual influences and consistency possible cases, such submission would proposes two partly correlated explorations for the « IUsers » and the « BTWR » global communities.

1. It would concern a simple general way to support a new global community along with RFC 6852 principles and objectives.

1. To initiateIRTF Research Group to advise the global community ontodiktyology project from the IETF point of view. A metaphor for this "Diktya" independent ontodiktyology would be a « protected and mailing list driven Wikipedia » for research and standardization.

2. To consider the possible emergence of the possible areas of concern and needs for a global community (such as « IUGC », or « XMRGC »).

3. To start a corresponding IRTF Research Group creation process, in using a Diktya mailing list, as an initial kernel for this community.

4. The first deliverable of that Research Group preparation process would be its own charter.

2. This would be enacted in the case of the XMRCG and IUGC global communities and possibly of other(s) GC that could be introduced (one could be an UICG sub-class).

3. An IETF mailing list would also be dedicated to the interfacing of global communities and inter-community processes as well as standardization consistency.

Thanks in advance for your comments!

JFC Morfin
NSE, INTLNET

<unquote>

_________________

Personal summary

This mail is to show that I did attempt to raise an open and fair terms debate to ground the information research (as what is transient, entropic and neguentropic on the networks). Let keep in mind that I wish this debate:

• to confront, test and build upon my ALFA (Architectonie Libre/Free Architectony) architectonic model,
• or to constructively challenge it in providing coherent alternative reference framework options (personal/phenomenological sapience) or architectonies (scientific basic model).

I remind you that ALFA's grammar is similar to the Loop quantum gravity's one. I consider autonomous information "stems" (stand-alone information elements, systems [logically structured aggregates] or "diktems" [diktyological (networked) aggregates]) documented by their metadata and networked together in the "interligence" tensegrity (what makes everything linked) by their syllodata (data between interlinked data). These stems are four dimensional as they span across time through their mnemes' (Ampere's sums of the past traces that build present and cybernetically condition possible) coherence and continuity. Cybernetics being the "art of navigation", here of the mneme's (hardware, software, brainware, knoware [information assets, that French "savoir" English misses]) "ship". As, for seemingly, for every Greek art (tekne), cybernetics developed as a technology (automatism) that is today superseding a new science/philosophy, we are trying to build as Paul Mathias's "diktyology" that will explain and enhance it. It seems that this action/enaction/reaction systemics/diktemics is particularly adapted to the "beyond the wall" citizen research's manner, allowing its returns deemed as "inaccessible" to other forms of research by the national sciences academies. My feeling is that BTWR by nature is not bound by the scientific doxa (budgets allowances, peers' reviews, publishers' interests, etc.). The use of perferents drastically reduces the number of texts to read, simplifies the tracking of thinking evolution, the peers' reviews [what count is the sustained number of readers, not the number of publications], publications costs, confidentiality (capability based) protection and nebs (private/community closed nebula restrained webs, with their own block chained compilaries). All this should permit to develop, test and validate new conoesis methods (digital disputatio). The idea is therefore to use that conoetic and diktyologic context to explore the related terms, concepts, and theories at a field scale. Please remember that what we have ahead is to understand "intellition", i.e. receiving information that has never been transmitted, like through abduction or scientific research (data as being capta, tracta or mneme's sapita). Please remember Virgile's, Tite-Live's, Cicero's and Caesar's inte(r)ligences ....

Mail to Colin Perkins

On 2 Sep 2022, at 19:15, JFC Morfin wrote:

Dear Colin,

A few days ago, I introduced the idea of documenting and experimenting how the IETF should support the « Global Communities, benefitting humanity » voluntary standardization needs.

Now, I would like to proceed with a short Draft that would document this, based upon the Diktya ontodiktyology project, which I would introduce as a separate autonomous entity, that I would initially support and that could be further on partly integrated in the IETF/IRTF/IANA community as an independent non-profit organization.

The task of identifying and defining a new global community through the identification of its needs, of their nature and some targeted Best Practices, would be for related proponents to the Diktya open structure to carry out. The introduction of an IRTF Research Group and possible IETF working groups would then be carried out per the existing procedures.

The questions that can be raised are those related to their relations with other SDOs (the example of ISO in the IUsers case with so many questions related to the scientific and networking considerations over information) and with non-IRTF research entities or communities (e.g. universities, institutional and private research in the XMR case).

Please let me know how you would like for me to proceed. Should it involve discussing some points or for me to send you or file a Draft?

Thanks for your help!

jfc morfin

Mail from Colin Perkins

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>

Sep 6, 2022, 8:53 PM (12 hours ago)

to JFC Dear JFC Morfin,

Thank you for your email.

Your ideas seem to be focussed around Internet governance and inter-SDO collaboration. These are important topics, but are outside the remit of the IRTF. Accordingly, while I thank you for your interest, the IRTF is unable support your work.

Regards, Colin Perkins IRTF Chair

Mail to Colin Perkins

JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com>

6:27 PM (4 minutes ago)

to irtf-chair, bcc: jefsey

Dear Colin,

I apologize for the misunderstanding, but it may help in understanding the issue better. My idea or, better yet, my question is: Does the IETF fulfill its remit, which is to make the internet work better?

• If yes, then I suppose everyone will be happy to know about it along with the reasons why it should be protected.
• If not, then why is that the case? The target is to help it do better and, therefore, be better at assessing the various unaddressed needs and to designate who it is for (end users at large or identified global communities).

In this context, governance issues have at least five origins:

• misorganization of the usership (governance of solutions for a single global community of 5 billion "anthropobotic" people might not be that simple ...)
• and/or lacks in technology (R&D and standardization),
• and/or mutual education and intercommunity polylog failures,
• and/or the non-identification of key "global communities, benefiting humanity" (RFC 6852),
• commercial or political standardizations competition

Together with other SDOs, best communicating information throughout the world is the IETF's end-deliverable. One SDO, ISO, has engaged in a global audit of the information governance situation due to what is starting to be called the "information catastrophe" (confusion over too much technically rough information). I personally add that in parallel, a technological and digital education audit could help and should be conducted.

There is a need for consistency among these four audits within the domains being evaluated: in the terminology, and in the usership patterns to be considered. I keep it very basic:

• a consistent survey of what exists and is lacking,
• Research and SDOs having further on to work or debate on the possible solutions upon a commonly assessed basis.

This is, in fact, a perpetual need (RFC 1958: principle of constant change) and, therefore, the resolution should be a permanent "knoware service" to Research and Standardization bodiesof the regalian, private, and civil communities of the "world information and true knowledge, people centered society" (cf. WSIS, Tunis, 2005).

It is a priority for these audits and the open "knoware" (neologism taken as "trusted information assets") research, standardization, and governance to share a globally common and open terms and concepts "ontodiktyology" (network of open interlinked ontologies) for everyone to speak the same disciplinary language from their different perspectives. This is not only a research-action to engage but also a part of an action-research (see below) I have pursued for 45 years (on the informational empowerment of individual, personal, and collective digital autonomy).

Note: Kurt Lewin (1890-1947) created the "action-research" term, which describes "any research into practice undertaken by those involved in that practice, with the primary goal of encouraging continual reflection and making improvements." It is typical, at the time of the Internet, of what Science Academies call "citizen Beyond the Wall Research", with results “inaccessible” to other university, institutional and industrial types of research (cf. S7 Sciences Academies)

To conceive, document, experiment, and start filling such an open ontodiktyology, I would like to use four sources of trusted knowledge:

• the IETF experience through RFCs and OpenStand principles;
• the WSIS conclusions and ITU documents;
• my own Tymnet Extended Services/McDonnell Douglas Network Systems responsibilities and post 1986 personal R&D continuation;
• the inputs from the user communities of every nature: Today, every glocal human community is using the internet and can certainly be a source of knoware.

As a first approximation, I imagine the ontodiktyology as a "wikipedia" of "what should be" for who wants to “perferent” [MHL2] it (I use Cicero's concept of a permanently updatable document), together with co-author topic oriented mailing lists and consideration group "compilaries" (blockchained archives you can share-in). Members of such groups will ask for the additional forms of services that they might need in order to associate with the existing SDOs.

My plan would be to document this project as an independent submission to the IRTF so that the RFC 6852 fathership would be respected and be located on the ontodiktyology welcome page.

Best,
jfcm

Draft elements

The objective: This text may change often as the discussion deepens:

• This Draft introduces the "Diktya" open ontodiktyology project on: network sciences and philosophy (diktyology); digital interligence and people centered extended systems of information translation, memorization, and processing; ways that they are and could be as well as what they do and what they could do. Its purpose is to help individuals, collective endeavors, global communities, and governments mutually prepare consistent documents for research, education, and standardization within SDOs abiding by RFC 6852 "OpenStand" principles, including the IETF/IRTF.

• This Draft introduces the "Diktya" open ontodiktyology project on:
• network sciences and philosophy (diktyology);
• digital interligence and people centered extended systems of information translation, memorization, and processing;
• ways that they are and could be as well as what they do and what they could do.

Its purpose is to help individuals, and collective endeavors, global communities, and governments mutually members prepare consistent documents, best practices and rules for : research, education, and standardization within SDOs, including the IETF/IRTF, abiding by RFC 6852 "OpenStand" principles and the WSIS 2005 Tunis Commitment.

• This Draft introduces the "Diktya" open ontodiktyology project on: network sciences and philosophy (diktyology); digital interligence and people centered extended systems of information translation, memorization, and processing; ways that they are and could be as well as what they do and what they could do. Its purpose is to help individuals, collective endeavors, global communities, and governments mutually prepare consistent documents for research, education, and standardization within SDOs abiding by RFC 6852 "OpenStand" principles, including the IETF/IRTF.

First-page header [Required]

Independent Submission                           Jean-François C. MORFIN
Request for Comments: ....                                           NSE
Category: Informational                                   September 2022

Title [Required]

 An open ontodiktyology for internet global communities standardization

Abstract [Required]

This Draft builds on published RFCs to acknowledge and identify the reasons of a constant inherent incompleteness of the internet standardization, in particular in the context of the technical singularity. It introduces the concept and implementation of an open ontodiktyology for the members of the internet, IETF and "OpenStand" "global communities, benefitting humanity", to cooperate in better identifying, documenting and addressing them.

Status of This Memo * [Required]

This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value for implementation or deployment. Documents approved for publication by the RFC Editor are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/....

Copyright Notice * [Required]

Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.

1. Introduction [Required]

La RFC 6852 introduit, puis explicite, le contexte d'un paradigme moderne de standardisation support de son économie générale par la synergie de ses communautés globales. Pour cela, elle actualise, sous le nom d'OpenStand, un jeu de conceptions fondamentales pour la standardisation de l'internet soulignant ainsi un souci :

• de cohérence normative générale venant d'une co-rédaction entre l'IEEE et la mouvance Internet (IAB, IETF, ISOC, W3C) et d'un appel aux SDOs d'autres communautés globales utilisatrices de l'internet pour qu'elles adhèrent aux mêmes principes.

• l'attention portée aux communautés globales, alors qu'elle se définit elle-même, jointe aux autres SDO comme une communauté globale de standrdisation,

• le souci d'une homogénité technologique fondée sur les marchés, qui donnerait l'impression d'une démocratie commerciale où l'achat vaudrait le vote, s'il ne s'agissait pas en fait, pour les communautés globales, d'un moyen de vérification de l'adéquation de leurs standards aux attentes de leurs membres.

2. Requirements Language (RFC 2119)

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
  "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
  BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
  capitals, as shown here

Ontodiktyology concept

There are three main reasons why the IETF needs to keep abreast and constantly make sure "the internet works better" :

• the social evolution of the human society whose members "global communities, benefitting humanity" (RFC 6852) are internet users,

• the global advancement of science and technologies that is known as "technological singularity" that the IRTF research,

• the informational singularity

RFC 1958 : Principles that seemed inviolable a few years ago are deprecated today. Principles that seem sacred today will be deprecated tomorrow. The principle of constant change is perhaps the only principle of the Internet that should survive indefinitely.

A 2016 article in Trends in Ecology & Evolution argues that "humans already embrace fusions of biology and technology. We spend most of our waking time communicating through digitally mediated channels... we trust artificial intelligence with our lives through antilock braking in cars and autopilots in planes... With one in three marriages in America beginning online, digital algorithms are also taking a role in human pair bonding and reproduction".

The article further argues that from the perspective of the evolution, several previous Major Transitions in Evolution have transformed life through innovations in information storage and replication (RNA, DNA, multicellularity, and culture and language). In the current stage of life's evolution, the carbon-based biosphere has generated a cognitive system (humans) capable of creating technology that will result in a comparable evolutionary transition.

The digital information created by humans has reached a similar magnitude to biological information in the biosphere. Since the 1980s, the quantity of digital information stored has doubled about every 2.5 years, reaching about 5 zettabytes in 2014 (5×1021 bytes).[93]

In biological terms, there are 7.2 billion humans on the planet, each having a genome of 6.2 billion nucleotides. Since one byte can encode four nucleotide pairs, the individual genomes of every human on the planet could be encoded by approximately 1×1019 bytes. The digital realm stored 500 times more information than this in 2014 (see figure). The total amount of DNA contained in all of the cells on Earth is estimated to be about 5.3×1037 base pairs, equivalent to 1.325×1037 bytes of information.

If growth in digital storage continues at its current rate of 30–38% compound annual growth per year,[42] it will rival the total information content contained in all of the DNA in all of the cells on Earth in about 110 years. This would represent a doubling of the amount of information stored in the biosphere across a total time period of just 150 years".[92]

7. IANA Considerations [Required in I-D]

  This document has no IANA actions.

8. Internationalization Considerations

The very concept of open ontodiktyology, as a multidisciplinary and multilinguistic network of ontologies, presumes the capacity for its users to consider and accept mixes of character sets, structures, formats, layouts, legal contents, and other aspects etc.

9. Security Considerations [Required]

There is no security consideration involved.

10.1. Normative References

• RFC 875 - Gateways, Architectures, and Heffalump
• RFC 1958 - Architectural principles of the Internet
• RFC 2028 - The Organizations Involved in the IETF Standards Process
• RFC 3439 - Some Internet Guidelines and Philosophy
• RFC 3869 - IAB Concerns and Recommendations Regarding Internet Research and Evolution
• RFC 3935 - IETF mission statement
• RFC 6852 - Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards
• RFC 8890 - The Internet is for End Users

10.2. Informative References

       Appendix A.
       Appendix B.

Author's Address [Required]

Jean-François C. MORFIN
NSE
jefsey@jefsey.com

Notes

Anglicisme employé pour définir un logiciel ou tout autre programme interne d'un ordinateur qui concerne l'aspect dématérialisé et rationnel de l'informatique

Anglicism used to define software or any other internal program of a computer which concerns the dematerialized and rational aspect of IT

Software is a set of computer programs and associated documentation and data.[1] This is in contrast to hardware, from which the system is built and which actually performs the work.

Electronic hardware consists of interconnected electronic components which perform analog or logic operations on received and locally stored information to produce as output or store resulting new information or to provide control for output actuator mechanisms.

Comware

Knoware

Archware

In biology, quorum sensing or quorum signalling (QS)[1] is the ability to detect and respond to cell population density by gene regulation. As one example, QS enables bacteria to restrict the expression of specific genes to the high cell densities at which the resulting phenotypes will be most beneficial. Many species of bacteria use quorum sensing to coordinate gene expression according to the density of their local population. In a similar fashion, some social insects use quorum sensing to determine where to nest. Quorum sensing may also be useful for cancer cell communications.[2]

In addition to its function in biological systems, quorum sensing has several useful applications for computing and robotics. In general, quorum sensing can function as a decision-making process in any decentralized system in which the components have: (a) a means of assessing the number of other components they interact with and (b) a standard response once a threshold number of components is detected.

Quorum sensing can be a useful tool for improving the function of self-organizing networks such as the SECOAS (Self-Organizing Collegiate Sensor) environmental monitoring system. In this system, individual nodes sense that there is a population of other nodes with similar data to report. The population then nominates just one node to report the data, resulting in power savings.[73] Ad hoc wireless networks can also benefit from quorum sensing, by allowing the system to detect and respond to network conditions.[74]

Quorum sensing can also be used to coordinate the behavior of autonomous robot swarms. Using a process similar to that used by Temnothorax ants, robots can make rapid group decisions without the direction of a controller.[75]

links of interest

• Archware oriented RFCs
• Information Centric Research Group
• Computing in the Network Research Group
• Tymnet, the McDonnell Douglas Network Systems Company, Extended Services
• Draft on Global Community Standardization Affirmation Process
• RFC 2028 - Entités impliquées dans le processus IETF
• RFC 8890 - The Internet is for End Users
• RFC 3935 - IETF mission statement
• RFC 3869 - IAB Concerns and Recommendations Regarding Internet Research and Evolution
• RFC 1958 - Architectural principles of the Internet
• RFC 3439 - Some Internet Guidelines and Philosophy
• Linking Research to Action: A Simple Guide to Writing an Action Research Report