On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:16 AM, Rufus Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 14/07/08 16:56, Mike Linksvayer wrote: >> Not if you check authoritative sources, like Google and Wikipedia. :) > > You should have spoken up earlier -- though the danger would be we would > have never reached agreement :) Perhaps this is something we can keep open > for the v1.1 (or v2.0) which will undoubtedly be necessary as more precise > use-cases (and edge-cases) come in over time.
Probably good I didn't -- "software service" is kind of growing on me. > It does seem that none of the suggested names were perfect (for example > several people I've mentioned Open Network Services too think their about > rules for ISPs). > >> This is the first I've heard of "software service" to mean SaaS, as >> opposed to some kind of professional service around software or a >> daemon running locally. By contrast, "network service" is crystal >> clear. Maybe SaaS will naturally collapse to "software service" and >> this will be moot. Hopefully this definition will be wildly >> successful and help make that happen. > > The key point is that we get the idea of 'freedom/openness' in relation to > services clearly out there together with the reasons why it is important. As > you say, while names are important they are certainly not the be all and end > all the crucial point is to get across the ideas they represent (and to that > end any label, if clearly understood, will be adequate). Yep. Mike _______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
