I 'm thinking of applying the lessons learned from the REST versus WS-* controversy onto Politics for Freedom.
WS-* said:
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.
REST said:
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment