Lists Home |
Date Index |
I'm not sure we can reduce "simple because
that will scale in a stateless environment"
to "worse". Simplifying assumptions equals
well-thought through requirements. A lot
of thinking went into the web architecture
and the first versions of it worked as
advertised. Complexity has come of layering
more requirements over that design and discovering
that it never solved the problems envisioned
by the first generations of hypertext system
pioneers. Now that people are actually trying
to solve them, progress has slowed down to the
same dull pace of that generation. Again, the
web architects have become what they so publicly
loathed. A five pound bag is still needed to
carry a five pound load.
Google is a fine loose white pages. A yellow
pages is still needed. Discovering that a business
exists is the easy part. Qualifying that business
is the hard part. Frankly, I'd hate to see
Google get yanked into the second part of that
problem. It's a good search engine.
From: Mike Champion [mailto:email@example.com]
10/10/2002 10:13:25 AM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>I'd sure hate to
>fly on airliners built to Shirky's philosophy,
Right. Shudder, what a thought!
But on the other hand I think his point is that a universal,
cheap hypertext web would not yet exist had it NOT been
built by a Worse is Better philosophy.
Worse is Better if you need universality fast, and can live
with some problems. Worse is Worse if you need guaranteed quality
of service, verifiable identify, reliable transactions, etc.
>UDDI may not be the best player,
>but it does have the quality that what one
>asserts one must back up. Using Google,
>anyone can say anything about anyone or
>anything and that is far too easy to game.
>The RESTafarians are taking a bridge too far.
I suspect that's why if you scratch a RESTifarian, you
often find a Semantic Web lover :-) Google for
discovery, a traceable network of assertions to determine
To steal a phrase from you (len) "horses for courses"