Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: Paul Prescod [mailto:email@example.com]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>> Well, humans. The semantic web has a long evolution
>> in front of it to beat the troublemakers and for that
>> reason, frictionless business based on loosely coupled
>> REST principles (based on URIs and GETs) won't work readily.
>Business has friction because business should have a certain amount of
>friction (e.g. accountants and auditors). Technology that adds
>integration friction to the social friction is just overhead.
Maybe. Sometimes it is worth slowing a process down, but that
should be built in and not a side effect. Do remember the Thule
Greenland incident in 1960. Had the process been running in
machine time, North America and most of Europe and Asia would
still be cinders. Humans should stay in the loop.
>> It may be just as doable to lie to RPC, but it isn't
>> as easy.
Because setting up a web service takes a certain amount of
savvy. Almost any idiot can build a web page and plant
references to toss google a curve. Sure, that
is the idea, but it means we have to vette sources and Google
being somewhat uncaring or laissez faire (as it should be) isn't
always a trustworthy source. One pays for quality and it may
be the case that for some kinds of information, one will pay
to ensure it is vetted. Yes that is a stratified web. Yes
it is happening and inevitable, IMO. One aspect of the semantic
web could be the detail, consistency, and verifiability of
such promises. This is where the semantic web and web
services have mutual interests: reliable assertions.
>IMHO, tricking computers is always easy, whether you use RPC, REST,
>asynchronous messaging or whatever.
Easy for thee. You are not the average bear. Obscurity is not
security and difficulty won't always make things less likely,
but likely to make things less likely. What the article
showed was the ease with which one could game Google.
At one point, it was suggested that what Discovery
systems were proposed for (eg, UDDI), Google could do. Google
can but the results are worth about what one pays for them.
Therefore, caveat emptor.