Thanks Dave,
This is an important distinction, and I did not appreciate it fully
until now. You are right, of course. Since I can't be at the meeting
today, I am taking this opportunity to voice my support for this, and
to apologize for not taking the time to appreciate this more fully. I
was seeing sensors as contained within a system which would take the
sensor signal and translate it with the capacities of the system as
the "source" or <senderID> . I didn't understand that they are not
always uniquely associated with a domain. I'm having a Home Simpson
moment here, (sound of palm smacking forehead, to the tune of "DOH!")
Sorry,
Rex
At 8:24 AM -0600 8/17/05, Ellis, David wrote:
>EM TC
>
>The CAP philosophy of messages being sent from "people" to "people"
>thru application interface forms is not the "machine" to "machine"
>EDXL philosophy. Sensor devices are not always uniquely associated
>with a domain and they are for sure not sent by an individual actor.
>In fact, most are on private "e.g. 10.1.1.1" internet non-routable
>networks. Because there are so many instantiations of these types
>of sensor networks we have explored MAC addresses of devices NICs
>for identifying the unique source of the application device sending
>the EXDL message. We need to consider expanding the restriction of
><senderID> to more than an individual "e-mail address".
>
>David E. Ellis
>Information Management Architect
>(505) 844-6697
>
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309
