Subject: Re: quantifying activity (was RE: [Simple] Extending <status> for pr esence)

From: Michael Hammer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:49:01 -0500

Jon,

I see activity and priority as two independent things, the former being an 
implicit fact measurable by the device, the latter being an explicit 
predisposition set by the user.  It indicates which form I am more likely 
to answer rather than what was the last device I responded to.  One is 
future, the other is past.

Time answers the question of how long has it been since you originated or 
responded to communications using that device.  But, out of curiosity, what 
sort of metric other than time were you thinking of?  I think time can be 
applied equally to two different devices.

Mike

At 05:38 PM 1/21/2003 -0500, Peterson, Jon wrote:

>I do think that abstracting activity from any particular manner of
>assessment is interesting and valuable, though undoubtably somewhat
>challenging (it would be tough to come up with a formula for evaluating
>whether I am more present on my telephone than my PC when the two use
>different metrics). I am a little hesitant to tackle this in our initial
>iteration of this work.
>
>If we want a bucket for this in the current document, though, I wonder if
>the relative 'priority' attribute of <contact> elements, which is already
>specified in PIDF, would be a good place for quantified activity information
>to be recorded. Presumably, one use of activity information would be to
>discover the best contact in a set; it might be confusing to have a separate
>parameter for this that conflicts with the existing priority parameter in
>PIDF. It also already has the connotation that it can be set manually.
>
>Jon Peterson
>NeuStar, Inc.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 1:22 PM
> > To: Paul Kyzivat
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [Simple] Extending <status> for presence
> >
>[snip]
> >
> > ON ACTIVITY
> >
> > I'd next like to comment on what you call "activity". I think there is a
> > need for some type of standardization to support this concept. There are
> > several different ways in which the concept can be quantified:
> >
> >    * the amount of TIME since the presentity last interacted
> > with the device
> >    * the physical DISTANCE of the presentity from the device
> >    * the PROBABILITY that a communications request to the device will be
> > answered by the presentity
> >
> > I think existing IM systems very much rely on the TIME definition.
> > However, in my experience that definition is heavily tied to the concept
> > of a PC application. On a cell phone, where the user normally does not
> > interact with the device continously, this tends to a poor definition.
> > For cell phones, the DISTANCE is a better measure, but even that is not
> > neccesarily a good one. The phone may be near me, but its tucked away
> > into a laptop bag and so I really am idle with respect to it, since I
> > can't hear it or reach it.
> >
> > Arguably, one approach is to separate the means for measuring "activity"
> > or "idleness" from its representation. Using something like a
> > probability, for example, would allow the metric to work across devices,
> > and for it to be measured differently for different devices.
> >
> > Another issue to be factored into the decision about how to represent
> > idleness is how frequently it needs to be reported to the watcher in
> > order to be useful. A time-based measure has the nice benefit that the
> > watcher can continously know how long the presentity has been idle,
> > simply by conveying the time of last activity in the presence
> > notifications.
> >
> > One final point on activity. Some have stated that the defining
> > characteristic of this status is that it is implicitly computed by the
> > system. I disagree. I think it may be perfectly valid to set
> > it explicitly.
> >
>_______________________________________________
>Simple mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:24:59 -0500

inline.

> Time answers the question of how long has it been since you originated 
> or responded to communications using that device.  But, out of 
> curiosity, what sort of metric other than time were you thinking of?  I 
> think time can be applied equally to two different devices.

In my email (to which Jon responded) I list other metrics, and indeed, 
argue why time is not a good metric for devices like cell phones.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

---

From: Michael Hammer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:12:37 -0500

Jonathan,

In one of my earlier postings, I suggested that there were two types of 
time-related activity indications, one which is an actual measure of last 
time the device sent or received a communication, two an explicit 
indication by the user that he doesn't intend to use the device until some 
specific time.  But, I think that the latter is a indication of 
predisposition that could also be corrected when the user changes his mind.

There may be a difference in time-scale consideration here.  I do think it 
useful, if someone attempts to call me on my cell phone since that is often 
viewed as personally with me and for many people is often on.  But, if you 
did have an indication that my phone has not sent nor answered a call in 
the last several hours, that this method is not the best right now.

Just because one indicator is not the best method for all devices does not 
mean that it might not be useful for others.  And either way, you are not 
going to drive the probability of answer down to zero.  People may simply 
not want to talk to the caller.

Mike

At 12:24 AM 1/23/2003 -0500, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
>>responded to communications using that device.  But, out of curiosity, 
>>what sort of metric other than time were you thinking of?  I think time 
>>can be applied equally to two different devices.
>

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 13:43:48 -0500

Michael Hammer wrote:
> time-related activity indications, one which is an actual measure of 
> last time the device sent or received a communication, two an explicit 
> indication by the user that he doesn't intend to use the device until 
> some specific time.  But, I think that the latter is a indication of 
> There may be a difference in time-scale consideration here.  I do think 
> it useful, if someone attempts to call me on my cell phone since that is 
> often viewed as personally with me and for many people is often on.  
> But, if you did have an indication that my phone has not sent nor 
> answered a call in the last several hours, that this method is not the 
> best right now.
> 
> Just because one indicator is not the best method for all devices does 
> not mean that it might not be useful for others.  And either way, you 
> are not going to drive the probability of answer down to zero.  People 
> may simply not want to talk to the caller.

I agree that the likelihood of coming up with a generic device 
independent indication of activity is low to zero. As such, 
standardizing things we know how to do, even if not ideal for all 
devices, is the only choice. And so, I do agree that a time based 
activity measure is something we need.

-Jonathan R.