A couple of interesting developments out of Grand Central. These guys have got it going on. Their network is largely state transfer based; not REST, but not far from it either, and “like it” in the right way. At least they’ve (mostly) got past the API-centric view of the world espoused by Web services proponents (yes, even for “document centric” Web services), despite paying lip service to WSDL.
An HTTP proxy that determines when I’m POSTing weblog comments (or other things, for that matter), and provides an RSS feed for them.
Probably the most interesting thing that I learned about RDF on my last project was that resource typing (via the use of rdf:type) was over-rated. As a long time distributed objects weenie, I naturally had this vision of resources (objects, if you will) with uniform interfaces (what else?), but also with types orthogonal to those interfaces (duh, since the interfaces are fixed) . You can’t have an object without a type can you?
Then reality hit. Despite the fact that I had actually speced out a type ontology for the project, and educated everybody about it, almost none of our RDF processing software actually checked the rdf:type triple! Apparently, if it walked like a duck, and quacked like a duck, then by golly, for all intents and purposes it was a duck! That was very liberating. I knew the moment I realized this, what had happened; I simply had overlooked what was important to the recipient of the documents, the data.
rdf:Description; not just a place holder for the lazy.
rdf:type; in many cases, YAGNI