Jutta Degener (jutta.degener@mediagate.com)
Mon, 26 Mar 2001 10:44:33 -0800
[Eric Burger wrote]
> In Minneapolis at the vpim work group meeting, we discussed whether there is
> really a SMS context. If, by SMS, we focus on the transport, there is not
> really a SMS context. This is because most modern Internet mail-SMS
> gateways do a good enough job preserving header semantics and packetizing
> messages to fit into the 160 character limit of SMS.
>
> However, if we focus on the "urgency" aspect, there may be something we want
> to capture. In particular, one can argue there is a context for what is
> essentially a text or numeric page. That is, a urgent message of very
> modest length.
>
> That said, do we need a "urgent, short message" (e.g. "Pager") message
> context, or is it enough to have a text-message with a low Priority header?
Here's why I favor having an explicit pager message context:
The Context is not trying to model transport restrictions or even
urgency alone; it's the human interaction styles and expectations
we're trying to capture.
Like fax messages and voice mail messages, page messages carry with
them a different style of use. When sending a short text message,
one is probably informal, in a hurry, the information will probably
become worthless if not consumed quickly, it's probably short, it
probably doesn't need permanent storage, but it might carry contact
information.
The fact that a user paged someone (rather than sending email) is
just as worthy of expression as the fact that they fed a document
into a machine or spoke into a phone receiver, even if these devices
are just virtual gateways to a common generic transport.
Jutta Degener
<jutta@mediagate.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Mar 26 2001 - 21:46:16 IDT