Hi all, I am working on the LinkedProcess, too, and since Marko is away on holiday, I might as well try to fill in here ...
For possible scenarios of LinkedProcess see even http://blog.jayway.com/2009/09/01/social-computing-or-let-the-bots-talk/ . Since LinkedProcess, is quite generic in its approach of making other processors available (a kind of ubiquitous XMPP controlled Google App Engine for any device, quite a number of XEPs are interesting to cooperate with. We already looked at http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0244.html and concluded it would be great to do more with it, it fits nicely into our relatively poor notion of data transfer and process exposure to non-XMPP consumers, see http://groups.google.com/group/linkedprocess/browse_thread/thread/2052aeb6908a5cd4/c52ad69ff0165229?lnk=gst&q=io-data#c52ad69ff0165229 So, without speaking for Marko and Josh, I think it would be great to join forces to produce specifications that as little fragmented as possible and thus have a wider application base than one effort. We pressed for the XEP document mainly to get (this) discussion going and to start the process. I guess Marko will have some more thoughts when he gets back ... /peter GTalk: neubauer.peter Skype peter.neubauer Phone +46 704 106975 LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/neubauer Twitter http://twitter.com/peterneubauer http://www.neo4j.org - Relationships count. http://www.oredev.se - The best thing since the wall came down. http://www.linkedprocess.org - Distributed computing on LinkedData scale On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Fabio Forno <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> My name is Marko Rodriguez. Joshua Shinavier and I created the Linked >>> Process specification to support Internet-scale distributed computing. >>> Peter Saint-Andre asked me to provide some "context" pointers to help >>> readers to identify the niche in which Linked Process fits. Here is a >>> list of resources that may be of interest: >> >> Thanks, Marko! I will make time to review this before tomorrow's Council >> meeting, though I must admit that the security considerations of your >> proposal are pretty scary. ;-) >> >> http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/lop.html#security >> > > It seems an excellent job for starting talking about XMPP & Cloud > Computing (indeed just peeked inside the use cases too see scope fo > the XEP), and I've two considerations to start: > - is a dedicated namespace with its verbs the correct approach for > these things? why not building it at the top of IO-DATA for example > (I'm always in favor to reuse what is existing)? > - is the XSF the correct place where to standardize these kind of > applications? I try to make myself more clear, since this in feature > it will be a gray area with more and more non-chat xmpp applications. > In order to standardize non-chat applications the XFS would need > members, and a council, having experts in the specific application > domain. I don't think that in the present and near future we will have > all these skills. However such contributions are very useful since > they give precious feedback for the infrastructure and even if the > council doesn't decide to accept them as XEPs I think that we could > provide some official space for discussion (e.g. more mailing lists? > ;) ) > > -- > Fabio Forno, > Bluendo srl http://www.bluendo.com > jabber id: [email protected] >
