Web Things, by Mark Baker

“It’s either got to be simplified, or radically rethought.”
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

It’s good to see John leaning towards REST. As for service description, I suppose having some use cases would help me understand the perceived need for one.
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

Hugh gets it. Perhaps a little heavy on the ontology side of things, but yup, +1.
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

“Today we cannot afford to build IT assets that are not composable”.
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

One stop shopping for REST-heads.
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

“When Google changes the links on this web page, Google changes my writing, without any input from me, and for commercial gain that certainly doesn’t benefit me, or SecurityFocus…” Notice how the argument of the AutoLink detractors boil down to “What’s
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

Yahoo opts for the Web, not Web services.
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

“When you sit down to write a description language for REST services (a IDL or WSDL for REST), you discover that doing so is unnecessary.” Absolutely. The application state machine needs describing (at runtime), not the services (at design time).
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]