OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: RE: RE: [xml-dev] Great piece on RSS

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

This isn't new news.  Both are done.  One 
gathers opinions and contracts.   Remember, 
contracting is a formal process because of 
protests.  If one does things promiscuously, 
the bid results are protested.  Protests are 
expensive for the contracting parties and 
can result in rebids.  Now all of that money 
spent on process is lost and one has to start 
over in some cases.  In any case, the only  
benefits go to the lawyers.

Most contract-based processes do have a 
provision for customer references.  What 
one wants to do is get a more complete 
list than the cheery cherries that the 
vendor will suggest (so called "reference 

If I want to hunt down a reliable vendor, I will check 
their references, but when it comes down 
to the procurement, it has to be based on 
the assertions of the contracting parties.

In many cases, discovery doesn't work like 
either of these cases.  One goes to conferences, 
shows, etc, inspects product, interviews, etc. 
Then an RFP is published.  What Google is good 
for is finding published RFPs and RFIs.

Yes, ranking should be based on multiple criteria, 
in other words, question the sources.  I think 
that what Google does is useful if worked alongside 
other sources and multiple means to rank.  All 
opinions and all searches are not equal.  For example, 
all opinions are not "small".   To sell a system 
in the business we are in here, one has to prove 
that one has sold systems where the customer is 
of a given size, has a given rate of incidents, 
and so on.   So to Google that and it be contract 
worthy, Google would have to keep a lot of metadata 
about the business and customer types.  This starts 
being more like UDDI.


From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@metalab.unc.edu]

At 10:21 AM -0500 10/10/02, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

>Thanks for making the point.  Worse is worse,
>but better needs requirements to insure it is better.
>Better than what is an operative question.
>Do we want Google to "evolve" into a business
>registry where the opinions of the competitors
>determine the ranking instead of the registered
>assertions of the vendor so registered?

I give much more weight to what a business registry where the 
opinions of the *customers* determine the ranking of a vendor than 
one that depends on the registered assertions of the vendor so 
registered. That, in effect, is what Google does today for the Web. 
The more happy customers a site has, the higher it ranks. Google's 
algorithm for determining customer happiness is heavily based  on 
linking, not perfect, but the best we've got so far. I trust this 
much more than search engines that sell placement, contract or no.

No, this isn't exactly what UDDI does, but I still think there's a 
lesson to be learned here about the emergent behavior of gathering 
many small opinions vs. trying to rely on a few centralized systems, 
experts, and contracts.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS