On 29 Jan 2009, at 08:54, Scott Wilson wrote:
> Depends on what you think you are looking at. I don't think they are
> "separate but very similar", I think they are completely different
> from the ground up. The level of similarity is quite trivial - they
> run on computers, they "manage stuff", and like pretty much any
> website they can offer RSS feeds.
They provide upload, storage, dissemination, commentary and social
functions for the documents that people want to exchange.
> Its not as though these are all Fedora instances with a few
> cusotmisations. For example, Youtube runs over a proprietary CDN
> backbone optimised for streaming. Slideshare and Scribd are both
> custom-built Ruby apps running off Amazon WS.
I think I'm looking at the user-level capabilities (the "trivial"
stuff from your point of view) and you are looking at the underlying
architecture (the "trivial" stuff from my point of view).
>> Can you give an example of where you think that things have gone
>> wrong?
> Take the amount of R&D investment made so far in generic repository
> architecture, metadata, and complex objects, and put it on one side
> of the scale. Now put realised value into the other side.
Can you give a *concrete* example that exemplifies the failure of the
general approach. I'm not doubting that there are such examples, I
would just ike you to choose the one that highlights the issues that
concern you.
--
Les
|