Year: 2002

Categories
Weblogging

Chaos

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

When working on a book, normally I can produce the chapters fairly consistently. However, with the RDF book, I’m having a bad case of writer’s block with one of the chapters. I can’t seem to sit down, sit still, and finish it. Tomorrow (well, today), no online time, no blogging, no googlewhacking, no cross-blogging, no Google Instant Messaging — finish the chapter. Do or Die. And if I don’t send out my W3s and W2s and other tax forms by end of day tomorrow, the revenue people will come and cart me away — for real.

I think one of my difficulties with the chapter is that I need a break from the city. I love this city, it’s so beautiful. And I love city life, though if I were rich, I would live half of my time in San Francisco or Boston or New York, and the other half in Vermont or Cannon Beach, Oregon. (So when my books publish this year, you’ll all have to buy at least two…of each. Call it the “Run the Bird out of town” fund.)

Still, regardless of how much I love San Fran – I – Need – A – Break – From – This – City! You can put that into a Google Instant Message and send it!

On the Australian home front: Jonathon — taking time off from swimming in the warm summer sun over the land of Oz — wonders if the next time I posted, it would be from Camp X-Ray in Cuba. I don’t know, there is a  resemblance. But the resemblance is only skin deep—I can walk away, anytime. Get in new car, head up the highway.

A tiny creature’s breath caused a tiny breeze that mixed with a drop of rain that bonded with other drops of rain that created a flood that re-sculpted a continent in a long ago time, eventually shaping the destiny of two peoples. And now members of one group of people sit behind razor wire and fencing in Cuba, held captive by the vanquisher of a war with no winners; and members from the other people, including yours truly, sit behind razor wire and fencing in San Francisco, held captive by fear of the vanquished.

‘Nuff! Any more of this “chaos” stuff, and I’ll lose my honorary membership in both the Meryl and the Australian Blogger web rings!


Categories
Weblogging

Google Instant Messaging

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Garth has taken Stav’s Google Instant Message to new heights — luckily the victim has a sense of humor.

I received a gentle message from a secret friend: burning bird hi shelley! is this flowbait

I think this was the only GIM — I don’t think “free unlinking porn”, “treacle tart”, and “tim tams uk” were secret messages.

Remember: GIM is for fun — use good judgement in knowing what to send to whom.

If we aren’t having fun, why bother?

Categories
Specs

Web Services Working Group

I’m extremely pleased to see the formation of a new working group at the W3C. It will be responsible for generating some meaning of the chaos that is Web Services. I may not be an adherent of the “Standards at all cost” club, but we do need to have standardization in three specific areas:

  • Protocols
  • Syntax
  • Semantics

Syntax is XML, Semantics is RDF, and a  public domain Protocol will, hopefully, come quickly and efficiently out of this new group.

XML as a syntax is safely within the public domain. However, there is too much implied ownership of the protocols (openly available or not), and there’s too little understanding of the importance of the semantics.

We don’t need centralized enforcement agencies such as UDDI., or centralized security paradigms such as Passport if we only have a standardized syntax, semantics, and protocol. Give me these, and I can build you an interface to anything, from anything.

My strongest hope is that the W3C moves swiftly — they’re late in the protocol game.

Categories
Web

A Common Interface

When people say something I want to respond to, I respond to it. And other people are, hopefully, responding to me if I say something interesting. When I respond to what others write, it is a compliment. It means that what was said definitely got my interest, regardless of whether I agree with what was said or not. When people respond to me, I take it as a compliment, even when they call me nasty things. (Go ahead! Call me a bitch! I live for this!)

Having carefully said all this, I find I do want to respond to something Dave said on Scripting News. I have to respond — to hold it in will cause me an injury.

I was a developer before the Web was even a twinkle in Berners-Lee’s eyes. I love to program, and have worked — worked mind you — with 18 different programming languages, including C, C++, Java, Perl, Snobol (any of you recognize this one?), Smalltalk, Ada, Pascal, Modula II, FORTRAN, LISP, and so on. And I still love to program, though I spend most of my time designing technology architectures and writing now.

When the web came along, it was love at first byte. I thought that this was great stuff — a universal front end to any application. I was so sold that I focused as much of my professional life on the web as I could, and still pay the bills.

I wrote books and articles on CGI and DHTML and JavaScript and XML and CSS and ASP and a host of other web technologies. Even today I find I am as fascinated by the web as I was waaaaaaaaaay back in the beginning. I’ve never seen that the web is low-tech. If anything, I find myself being stretched more by the web than by traditional programming.

In all this time, I just don’t remember there ever being a battle between C developers (I’m assuming by this Dave meant people who don’t want to use the web as an environment for their applications) and web developers. Not all applications fit the web, and not all companies have chosen the web for their environment — but that’s not developers, that’s just business. Most companies today use applications from both environments, something that will probably continue to be the norm into the future. (We don’t want to use Word over the Internet as a service, no matter what Microsoft says. Same for PhotoShop)

There’s discussions — constantly — between server-side folks and the designers. I know that I’ve had a lively chat or two with the WSP people who are, primarily, web designers. But most developers I know of, such as myself, are thrilled to play with the new technologies the web has provided. There might be a few who don’t want to play web, but most of us are as happy (or more) working with web development as we are with traditional development.

The whole thing is really about services isn’t it? Providing services to people who need them. Most computer-based functionality is nothing more than services wrapped in a front end — doesn’t matter if the front end is a VB application or a web page. All that matters is that the services are prompt, efficient, secure, accurate, and effective. If some people prefer to create the front end in VB and put both service and front end on one machine, that’s cool. If they prefer a web page, that’s cool. Where’s the battle? Apples and oranges.

As for Netscape and Microsoft and the W3C not having a vision for the future of the web, oh they most certainly do and did. Microsoft’s whole vision is .NET and owning the internet. In fact, the company’s vision scares me most of the time. Netscape also had strong designs on the web before they became the underdog. As for the W3C, we wouldn’t have the web without this organization’s efforts. I may preach chaos, but I practice chaos on top of a specific development platform, and I have that platform thanks to the W3C.

The key is that there are a lot of groups and people who have their own visions for what is the future of the web. If we continue to work towards a common interface, then we can each practice our own vision and our own chaos behind that interface. But we must have this interface, and I’d rather it be provided by an organization that doesn’t profit, then one that does. The interface cannot be owned by any one company, any one organization, or any one person.

Categories
Web

W3C Web Services Group

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I’m extremely pleased to see the formation of a new working group at the W3C. It will be responsible for generating some meaning of the chaos that is Web Services. I may not be an adherant of the “Standards at all cost” club, but we do need to have standardization in three specific areas:

  • Protocols
  • Syntax
  • Semantics

Syntax is XML, Semantics is RDF, and a  public domain Protocol will, hopefully, come quickly and efficiently out of this new group.

XML as a syntax is safely within the public domain. However, there is too much implied ownership of the protocols (openly available or not), and there’s too little understanding of the importance of the semantics.

We don’t need centralized enforcement agencies such as UDDI., or centralized security paradigms such as Passport if we only have a standardized syntax, semantics, and protocol. Give me these, and I can build you an interface to anything, from anything.

My strongest hope is that the W3C moves swiftly — they’re late in the protocol game.