I 'm thinking of applying the lessons learned from the REST versus WS-* controversy onto Politics for Freedom.
Define the Message Structure (SOAP) and the End-point Operations (WSDL) and let the world begin!
What i see of relevance to Politics is that the WS-* way of doing thing is to have almost identical peers communicating through well-established channels and pre-specified context.
It requires *similar* Parties talking to each other inside existent institutions (i.e. parliament),
specifically, Parties that have already agreed on the future of the society, the type of struggle required, etc.
Define the Protocol (HTTP) and the End-point Address Scheme (URL) and let the world begin!
REST defines just the absolutely necessary constructs for peers to communicate, independently of implementation and structures, which in real-life might be different types of organizations, with separate purposes, and utilizing diverse actions and patterns:
Fop instance, web-like organizations similar to those that had supported demonstrations at Genova or Seattle or Dublin, and collaborative sites like Indymedia, having agreed only about the minimum required.
Though REST-like entities seem less powerful than the over-engineered WS-*-like ones,
the diversity implied by the former matches the participatory nature of social workings,
so at the end of the day those are the indisputable winners.