[foaf-protocols] fp:ping

Story Henry henry.story at bblfish.net
Thu Apr 15 20:55:49 CEST 2010

On 15 Apr 2010, at 15:20, 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
>>> somehow.
>> 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.

> Toby,
> I think SPAM killed pingback uptake a long time ago. I really don't believe its widely used these day.

I think it is quite widely used by bloggers to notify google and other search engines
or aggregators when they post a new update... I can certainly see that if you automatically
accept all pings, then you open yourself up to spam. The pings need to be filtered.

Anyway, here is the spec


So having read it again I think it has a lot of good things:

 - the X-Pingback header is a good for photos, that cannot contain links
 - the link relation in the html
I think the only thing I am really against is the use of the xml/rpc. Perhaps I can 
convince the semantic ping back people to enhance the ping back service to enable 
application/x-www-form-urlencoded results. I think that with that, and allowing that
the ping back service be foaf+ssl enabled, one could get something interesting.

> 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.

Yes, the clever thing about this restful ping mechanism is that - apart from being
so simple that it feels like some people may die of a heart attack hearing of it -
is that we can know the identity of the pinger, by placing the form behind a foaf+ssl access
control layer. I don't think this completely deals with SPAM - you can't deal with SPAM if 
you want to be open to novel interactions, but it does 

> This plus WebFinger will accelerate our journey towards FOAF+SSL usage critical
> mass based on fixing broken Web 2.0 items :-)

Ok, I'll rewrite my suggestion to the pingback people and the linkeddata list.


> -- 
> Regards,
> Kingsley Idehen	      President & CEO OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen 

More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list