If only media types were http URIs, then you could dereference them to learn whether or not they’re what you’re looking for. This is why URNs suck.
(link) [Mark Baker’s Bookmarks]

Sweet! But is it a tree in the forest, or the first domino?
(link) [Mark Baker’s Bookmarks]

In a previous incarnation of this project, I was asked to move to Mountainview in late 1999 (IIRC) to work with Asko Komsi of Nokia on a micro version of Gecko/Mozilla. We were to work out of Netscape/AOL’s offices there. Politics killed it, but I heard
(link) [Mark Baker’s Bookmarks]

(Via Jacek) Digs deep into HTTP/RDF as a tuple/triple-space architecture, and concludes that this is the future of Semantic Web services. I couldn’t agree more!
(link) [Mark Baker’s Bookmarks]

Congrats to Edwin and Doron!
(link) [Mark Baker’s Bookmarks]

Separated at birth?
(link) [Mark Baker’s Bookmarks]

Tim Bray writes

about an informative
Nokia paper on WS/SOA.

Check out Nokia Web Services Framework for Devices – a Service-oriented Architecture. It’s a practical intro to how SOA might play in the mobile space, with some eminently sensible background work; there’s a section entitled What is a service-oriented architecture, and why is it good?

Heh, look, HTTP GET and POST being used (largely) RESTfully. Yeah.

The example exchange at the end is a bit concerning though.
Anybody who’s done any amount of work in the mobile space quickly
learns that network round trips are even more prohibitively
expensive than on the land lines. You’re looking at at least a
500ms one-way over most networks, perhaps up to a second or more
depending upon a number of factors, primarily signal strength (read;
packet loss). At Idokorro, we had access to the first GPRS network in
Canada (when nobody else was using them) and the first GPRS
Blackberrys, and we were still getting 1.2 second hops to our BES.

So, any solution that requires two network round trips for doing
what can be done in one, is a really horrible idea. They should scrap
the PAOS stuff and just send the authentication information in the
initial GET. It’s more self-descriptive, the net bandwidth consumption,
at least in this example, is appreciably reduced (if auth info isn’t
needed elsewhere, it might not be over time, though there’s still RESTful
ways to manage that), and the user or app gets their data a second
(or more) faster.

Stefan found
a paper with a very interesting title, that I hadn’t heard
anything about;
Developing Web Services Choreography Standards – The Case of REST vs. SOAP.

I’d heard Keith Swenson’s name a few days earlier in the context of
and some of the recent
surrounding it, but I’ve known about his work for a while. I spent some
time studying both SWAP
(co-authored with a buddy of mine,
Greg Bolcer)
during their development.

Aside; IPP actually slowed my studies into the Web (along with
HTTP-NG, sigh) because I, for
whatever reason, started by assuming that IPP was a good use of HTTP.
Only later did I realize that the exact opposite was true (as was only recently
confirmed by Roy).

On the upside, IPP’s use of POST spawned an important and interesting exchange,
via Internet draft, that I studied very carefully (which lead to a
draft of my own);
Don’t go Postal

The Use of POST.

Anyhow, all of this to say that I was quite surprised to see
REST reasonably well represented … except for perhaps this part;

Several standards for REST style workflow interaction have been proposed, namely SWAP, Wf-XML
[26, 52, 58], AWSP [49] and ASAP [38]. Instead of relying on the HTTP 1.0 commands, these standards
provide higher level operations that are specifically designed for the interaction with remote processes.

Hint; if you’re trying to provide operations at a higher level than the
application layer (e.g. HTTP), you’re abusing HTTP, not using it. But, the
operations being tunneled are themselves reasonably generic, which is good
design practice for this space, and what I think the authors were trying to
point out as nearly RESTful.

It’s really encouraging to see REST mentioned in the context of workflow,
since I believe it provides a superior base for scalable solutions than does
SOA. I think this paper could be an important piece of work if the authors were
to spend some time studying both architectural styles from a software architecture
POV, as well as actually building some systems with each. As is, the analysis is
pretty decent, but the conclusion – basically that it’s a crap shoot over which
one is superior – needs some major work.

Mario Jeckle, dead at 30. Peace, Mario.
(link) [Mark Baker’s Bookmarks]

Geez, I didn’t realize it was still going. I remember attending a meeting in 1998 when it was called the “Connected Alliance”. Neat stuff, based primarily on Anselm Baird Smith’s Java Embedded Server (JES)
(link) [Mark Baker’s Bookmarks]