ojirio at gmail.com
Thu Apr 15 16:42:04 CEST 2010
I agree with Kingsley on this... pingback mechnisms can be very
vulnerable to spam.
I have a similar thing in mind for this, but it's a part of much greater
and complex system, it will take time to write it all down...
Basically it the pingback could be a semantic RPC call which could be
just one URI which the recipient can checkout or not, depending on his
trust, and execute the procedure (in this case add a few triples to some
of his graphs).
(The big project is description of procedures/functions - computation)
(Anchakor on freenode, feel free to contact me there about it)
On 04/15/2010 04:20 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> Toby Inkster wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:09:46 +0100
>> Story Henry <henry.story at bblfish.net> wrote:
>>> It seems unnecessarily complex.
>>> It uses RPC, when a simple HTML FORM can do. Why? RPC was cool 8
>>> years ago because it used XML! Wow! The continuation of this lead to
>>> the SOAP bubble, which seems to have vanished in the past year
>> You get the benefit of compatibility with the large installed base that
>> Pingback has, and you get to reuse existing Pingback libraries and
>> testing tools.
> I think SPAM killed pingback uptake a long time ago. I really don't
> believe its widely used these day. In a sense, a FOAF+SSL enhanced
> pingback mechanism is what we could use to achieve the following:
> 1. Yet another FOAF+SSL utility showcase
> 2. Resurrect a potential viral system that is current quite dormant.
> This plus WebFinger will accelerate our journey towards FOAF+SSL usage
> critical mass based on fixing broken Web 2.0 items :-)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/attachments/20100415/196e8be9/attachment.pgp
More information about the foaf-protocols