Can this be it? I think I’ve just found the key to describing the relationship between the Web and document-style Web services. Cross your fingers. If all goes as planned, the next few weeks are going to be very exciting.
Scoble writes; I’m watching 636 sites every day. Try to do THAT in your Web browser. Which way would you prefer? And not to mention that “not using the browser” is different than “not using the Web”. How did you get that RSS? Uh huh, I thought so. 8-)
As an interesting addendum to the Eolas debacle, did you realize that Mike Doyle from Eolas flaunted their acquisition of the UC patent on www-talk? ’nuff said.
“Tech Curmudgeon”, while probably still an accurate description of my attitude towards so much “new” technology, wasn’t really conveying, at a glance, what my weblog was (currently) about. So I’ve renamed it “Web Things”. There’s a double-entendre there, but you probably have to be a Web-head to get it (or at least come down on… Read More »
Though he didn’t use the words “self-description”, a good article nonetheless. FWIW though, I think XML only provides the syntax in which contextual information can be serialized. It’s a start, but we need more.
A great quote relayed by Jim Hendler, as told by an old advisor of his; “the only thing better than a strong advocate is a weak critic” Heh. Too true.
Nelson writes; Each of the individual applications using RDF I know of could have been done more easily with plain XML Absolutely and unapologetically true. But the statement misses the critical lesson of software architecture (and architecture in general); only by applying constraints can one realize useful properties. RDF/XML based apps have more useful properties… Read More »
Tim Bray just chimed in on the whole Shirky issue, and is pretty much bang-on again. I’m not going to talk about that issue though, but I wanted to discuss something Tim brought up, XBRL. He wrote; Of course, if companies as a matter of routine posted XBRL versions of their financials at addresses like… Read More »
Dave has written a great piece on loose coupling for Webservices.org. It really breaks things down well, including a list of 10 ways in which loose coupling can be achieved. That list, *GASP*, even includes “constrained interfaces”. As you might expect, I disagree with Dave on some stuff. But most of it is pretty accurate,… Read More »
Don Box asks; In a world in which all SOAP messages have <wsa:Action> header blocks, why do my Body elements need XML namespace qualification? First order answer; I’d say simply because an intermediary that doesn’t know the value of the Action header might want to look at the payload. Second order answer; I think it’s… Read More »