[jdev] Semantic question

[Dave Cridland]

On 30 April 2015 at 13:48, Adrien <souliane at mailoo.org> wrote:

> On 04/30/2015 12:54 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>
>> On 30 April 2015 at 11:23, Goffi <goffi at goffi.org> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>>          - federated: the ability from servers of different domains (
>>> example.net and capulet.lit) to talk together, in both directions.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Yes, or more generally, the ability for multiple disparate
>> administrative
>> domains to intercommunicate on an equal basis.
>>
>
> "administrative" is really the good word here.
>

"Administrative Domain" is a term of art; it's not "domain" as in DNS.


>
>  [...] Actualy it's a bit tricky, because if one entity has 1000
>>> servers but everybody is using the same domain, the data are centralised
>>> in
>>> the hands of the same entity.
>>>
>>
> This entity looks decentralised if you count the servers and look at their
> geographical repartition. But since they are controlling them all, it's the
> same administrative authority. So I guess "administrative" should be the
> word again :)
>
>  So, what meaning do you put behind these words ? Are decentralisation and
>>> federation more or less synonyms ?
>>>
>>
> That's what I understand, even if decentralisation - as it's been said by
> Dave - can be more general. For the academic definitions, it's a mess
> according to [1].
>
> I noticed that federation is not used on [2] but instead:
>
> "Decentralized — the architecture of the XMPP network is similar to email;
> as a result, anyone can run their own XMPP server, enabling individuals and
> organizations to take control of their communications experience."
>
> So... am I XSF-compliant if I use the terms like that:
>
> - centralisation: single administrative authority (it's like a kingdom).
>
>
No really - some systems have multiple central authorities (such as PKIX).
But "Authority" is a good word here.


> - decentralisation or federation: many administrative authorities (states
> federation).
>
>
The difference between the two is that decentralization implies that none
of the administrative domains act as an authority over any other; whereas
federation implies that they intercommunicate. This is somewhat problematic
with your analogy, since in geopolitical federations there is almost
certainly an authority with powers over the states.

It's possible to have a centralized federated system; and one could argue
that because XMPP is reliant on the DNS for federation, then this means
there *is* a central authority.


> - interdomain federation: a special case of the decentralisation that
> makes it possible for any entity to become a new administrative authority
> (very open federation).
>
>
Careful; the openness is largely orthogonal.


> - distribution: peer2peer (direct democraty)
>
> ??
>
>
> [1]
> http://networkcultures.org/unlikeus/resources/articles/what-is-a-federated-network/
>
> [2] http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/technology-overview/
>
> --
> Adrien
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> JDev mailing list
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
> Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe at jabber.org
> _______________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/attachments/20150430/69a265f9/attachment.html>