Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Google as Big Brother
 Joshua Allen wrote: > Pure sophism: > > >>>First, Google is not mandated as central by any standards body. There >>>is no "uddi.org" that decides who gets into the search engine game or >>>not. > > > That's like saying that Windows development is not centralized because > anyone can write an operating system. Technically untrue, and > irrelevant besides. Fair enough, I clarified that Google is designed as a component of a decentralized system, with no special status in the architecture, which is not the case with DNS or UDDI. >>>Second, Google has no information about a site (except synthesized >>>data like PageRank) that you cannot get from the site itself. > > > This is patently false. Google adds tremendous value as an > "introduction broker" by tracking information from users of the "google > toolbar", random clickthrough statistics, and all sorts of text analysis > (not just links) of cached copies of the data. None of that information > is "free" or "open" by any stretch of the imagination. Text analysis is synthesized data and anyone can do the same analysis by crawlign the Web themselves. The rest is really not that valuable to the users of the search engine. If it was, AltaVista would not have been so soundly beaten to a pulp by Google itself (they would have had such a huge advantage in "clikthrough statistics"). The clickthrough information etc. is much more likely to be useful to marketers than to users. >... > You don't even need to use them at all to *do* the introduction. This > argument is irrelevant. Google's purpose is doing introductions (as is UDDI's). I have no idea what you're saying here. >>>Fourth, Google's way of addressing resources is by their URIs. That >>>means that once I get an introduction through Google, I can introduce >>>a third party without going through Google again. UDDI uses UUIDs and >>>those UUIDs are specific to some particular registry. > > > Wrong about UDDI, and irrelevant because it's the "introduction broker" > or directory services that we're talking about, not the actual visit > once the introduction is brokered. I'm not talking about the visit. I'm talking about introducing _someone else_. If I (an end-user) want to introduce someone else to IBM (as described in a bunch of TModels) I have to refer to those TModels in the UDDI repository, because there is no URI that has the same information. The information isn't (usually) a copy of information on IBM's site: UDDI is _the_ canonical owner of the information (as DNS is the canonical owner of the name->IP mapping). If IBM happens to also have an RDF description of itself that happens to have the same information, I could use that instead. But obviously that's outside of the UDDI system. It should be the reverse. IBM should own their canonical information and the UDDI registry should have a copy. The UDDI registry should offer pointers to the IBM-maintained information and registries should compete with each other based on sophistication of queries supported and performance. Paul Prescod 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
