Comments for Peter's Pensieve

Comment on Thanks ICANN for a new opportunity for crooks and dodgy operators by Amazon’s bid for the .book domain name – The blame lies elsewhere | Peter's Pensieve

Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:54:36 +0000

[...] all the flack? The real culprit, in my opinion, is the ICANN of worms opened last Spring – I blogged at the time that what they were doing was a very, very, silly idea and would really benefit nobody but crooks and dodgy operators. To be clear, I do not place Amazon [...]

Comment on Why I withdrew as candidate for NSTIC Chair by SOA as a Dynamic Value Network | Peter's Pensieve

SOA as a Dynamic Value Network | Peter's Pensieve — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:00:38 +0000

[...] ← Why I withdrew as candidate for NSTIC Chair A “User”? Me? How dare you… → [...]

Comment on Make way for SOA 2.0 | InfoWorld | News | 2006-05-17 by SOA as a Dynamic Value Network | Peter's Pensieve

SOA as a Dynamic Value Network | Peter's Pensieve — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:00:34 +0000

[...] Evidence for this ought to be that technologies change but underlying paradigms do not (see my vent on the subject of SOA v2) and so it is with [...]

Comment on Personal Data – assets or liabilities? by A Paradigm Shift in Personal Data – from ownership to use | Peter's Pensieve

Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:38:52 +0000

[...] to offer the “data subject” some useful service> Think how things might change if possession of personal data were considered a liability rather than an asset and required statutory reporting – how that would change business practices [...]

Comment on SOA as a Dynamic Value Network by A Paradigm Shift in Personal Data – from ownership to use | Peter's Pensieve

Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:38:50 +0000

[...] seems set to change if we think of this ecosystem as actually offering the possibility of a value network rather than a value chain. In a value chain, value is added as some product or asset is passed upwards. It is only one-way: [...]

Comment on A “User”? Me? How dare you… by A User? Me? Part 2 | Peter's Pensieve

A User? Me? Part 2 | Peter's Pensieve — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:44:48 +0000

[...] ← A “User”? Me? How dare you… [...]

Comment on A “User”? Me? How dare you… by SOA as a Dynamic Value Network | Peter's Pensieve

SOA as a Dynamic Value Network | Peter's Pensieve — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:56:43 +0000

[...] Peter's Pensieve Personal thoughts around my work at peterfbrown.com Skip to content HomeAbout Me ← Why I withdrew as candidate for NSTIC Chair A “User”? Me? How dare you… → [...]

Comment on Thanks ICANN for a new opportunity for crooks and dodgy operators by CmdrTaco

CmdrTaco — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:43:46 +0000

Interesting. Related article on Slashdot today,
http://ask.slashdot.org/story/12/06/19/1336210/how-would-you-redesign-the-tld-hierarchy

Comment on UK Government struggles with a simple word – “open” (finally, a real debate!) by Chris

Chris — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:28:02 +0000

Possibly, in fairness the analogy has been as much abused. The issue is, in the context of the consultation, about interoperability. So the ‘railway as a platform’ is not bad, just as it says nothing about a particular exploitation of that platform – the type of carriage. You do have mandates for interoperability standards both for interoperabilty and investment efficiency. You get a wider range or railway carriages if you only have one railway gauge. To extend the analogy that way – one railway investor (public sector) chooses one railway gauge that minimises the cost of others developing railway carriages (an open standard). In and of itself it says nothing about other investors and other gauges. So yes – one would only do mandates at the level that made sense – between things. Unlike road and rail in software that level is often the higher rather than lower level owing to its overlay on general purpose computing.

Comment on UK Government struggles with a simple word – “open” (finally, a real debate!) by Peter

Peter — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:25:27 +0000

Chris,
It wasn’t my analogy! In the article I actually say (and said at the meeting) “you have to be careful about the analogies and metaphors you choose as they can be turned against your own argument”.
I actually agree with you. As you say, you “need all sorts of standards” – that was my point: not just a single standard. If we did take the metaphor further – even if we had a single (set of) standards for a particular infrastructure (be it road, rail, etc) would we mandate a single type of vehicle to use that infrastructure? or rather a set of standards that any vehicle should adhere to if it wants to use the infrastructure? That was really my point – does that make more sense?