[foaf-protocols] fp:ping

Kingsley Idehen kidehen at openlinksw.com
Thu Apr 15 21:05:44 CEST 2010


Story Henry wrote:
> 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
>
>   http://www.hixie.ch/specs/pingback/pingback
>
> 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.
Yes, get rid of the xmlrpc for sure, and then inject #webids into the 
mix, and the system is fixed in a big way.

>  Perhaps I can 
> convince the semantic ping back people to enhance the ping back service to enable 
> application/x-www-form-urlencoded results. 

Yes, Soren and co. won't have problem tweaking the spec, they are 
FOAF+SSL implementor re. OntoWiki etc..

> I think that with that, and allowing that
> the ping back service be foaf+ssl enabled, one could get something interesting.
>   

Understatement of the century!! :-)

>   
>> 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 
>   

It reduces SPAM immensely. Policies will basically handle the rest.
>   
>> 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.
>   
Okay.

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


-- 

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