On 23 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Lin Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Pablo Mendes <pablomendes@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe we should also consider that companies/universities advising people (esp. small companies) to publish Linked Data, should give them complete advice, including protection. If their providers are not able to implement such simple solutions such as throttling, white/blacklisting, then this a business opportunity. One could sell Safe Linked Data provision (potentially including all the WebID goodness) as a package that both shows the beauty and protects from bad behavior. > > Sorry, but if paying for a service is what is required to protect publishers from massive abuse of their resources, The internet is not free: you have to pay for servers, internet access, software and so on. I think what Pablo was suggesting is that service providers could differentiate themselves by providing more resilient software in part WebID enabled. Btw, WebId is so easy to implement and there are no patents on it, that I don't see that the competition when the grok the idea won't be able to push the prices down. > then I will personally email every Drupal user account on drupal.org and tell them to turn of RDF module and forget about Linked Data. You want to tell them that some people using Drupal will roll our improved services, and that therefore they should stop using linked data? > Fortunately, I think that the Linked Data community can come up with a better way to handle this kind of abuse. What do you suggest? > I know this proposal was with the best of intentions, but it simply isn't something I would be willing to stand behind. What is the problem you see with these solutions? Apart from the fact that people could offer better services by proposing them. Henry > > -Lin Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 11:14:28 UTC