[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Monday 07 October 2002 23:26, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> A centralized registry *will* work if it can take
> the hits and the users accept its authority.
I cetainly would not accept such an authority. I'd preffer distributed
metadata bundled with the subject resources. Emm, actually, seperate metadata
issued from third sources is what the money is on and that's where the trust
will come in but with people bearly noticing it. I expect most such parties
to expoce such a function from so-called web services.
> 1. Decentralization is more reliable. Share
> loads among servers or fall over. How much
> centralization can one afford? Big iron is the
> quick solution but it doesn't always scale well.
I have to get in the habit of completely read the message before replying.
> Distributing authority
> is the key to effective local control of local
> resources.
I'm wondering what you mean by 'local'. We may agree here too, where
'locality' measures how some subjects (or topics if you preffer) relate with
eachother within some function.
> Centralizing design is different
> from centralizing implementation.
True; a single authority can operate in a distributed manner. I'm glad there
is no reason for a cerntral authority in this case anyway.
Manos
|
