Lists Home |
Date Index |
Bill de hÓra wrote:
>>From: Paul Prescod [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>>Google's death would be an annoyance but it wouldn't bring anything
>>crashing to a halt the way that the death of DNS would.
> True. The point was that Google centralizes, not that it's key
> infrastructure. That's not to say we couldn't come to be critically
> dependent on Google or something like it.
Google centralizes in the sense of "bringing things together." It
doesn't centralize in the sense of providing a function which could
architecturally not be provided by some competitor. Or to put it another
way, if you and I wanted to compete with Google, we could put together a
team of PhDs and a spider. But if we wanted to compete with Internic we
would have to lobby ICANN or the Justice department or the UN (depending
in who is in control this week).
Google by design gives guesses about what you want. A service that is
more like UDDI in terms of having more algorithmic query results is
Meerkat. And again, you and I could set up a competitor to Meerkat if
there was a business model for it. I would reject any design for UDDI
that sets up a namespace which makes competition difficult or
impossible. And that's how the original UDDI was designed. The UDDI
consortium companies would assign businesses Universal IDs (UUIDs) and
anyone who wanted to map a UUID to a business would have to go to a
consortium member's UDDI repository. No way!