[foaf-protocols] Fwd: Re: WebID breakthrough - pure Javascript+Flash implementation

Bruno Harbulot Bruno.Harbulot at manchester.ac.uk
Fri Aug 13 19:35:04 CEST 2010



On 13/08/10 16:19, Henry Story wrote:
>
> On 13 Aug 2010, at 17:11, Bruno Harbulot wrote:
>
>> i,
>>
>> You're absolutely right, RESTfulness matters for curl/Tabulator
>> (essentially, non-browser user-agents). Does it matter to the
>> general public using a browser for normal website usage? I'm not
>> sure right now.
>
> In architecture we are not asking what matters to the public.

Sorry Henry, but that's quite a silly statement.
If you lose sight of what the potential users want, you end up building 
useless stuff, however good the architecture is. I'm not saying 
non-experts should have a say on everything, but clearly, how they're 
going to use it and the benefits they can understand do matter.

If you want to achieve your million WebID goal [1] by December, you'd 
better figure out what your users want and why they may feel they have a 
interest in getting a WebID.


> Let us just say that
> I don't hear anybody speak of SOAP anymore and that billions of
> dollars were poured into that.

Maybe it's because you've left Sun? SOAP is used, believe it or not (I 
don't necessarily like it, but that's the way it is). You might hear 
less about it because the associated tooling has improved over the 
years. It may not be architecturally clean, not as "pure" as REST, but 
it satisfies the category of users who just want to make the equivalent 
of an RPC call; there's quite a few around. If they've solved the 
problem they had, who are we to tell them to change?


> Now I don't think we are interested on this list to discuss the
> benefits inconveniences of REST. There are other lists for that. We
> clearly here believe in the benefits of it and of the benefits of
> linked data. That is not up for discussion.

I see...

> Here we are discussing foaf protocols, ie things one can do when one
> believes that linked data and social networks together provide some
> very powerful opportunities.

I think you've been doing some FOAF+SSL evangelism for too long. It's 
not just about what you /believe/, it's about how users will perceive 
the technology as being beneficial to them.
What we, on this list, believe can be achieved is not particularly 
relevant if the users are not interested in it. They'll need a good, 
substantial reason to jump from what they currently have to whatever new 
technology we develop.


Best wishes,

Bruno.


[1] 
http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/2009-December/001086.html


More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list