Re: base paradigm

Perhaps its the case then that this architecture can't be realized in
any basic operational model we're used to, like message passing etc?
In which case it's not so much an architecture, as a specification
that is impossible to implement.

For example, a lot of the web spec focuses on unique/global
consistency, as illustrated by following quote:
"the significance of identity for a given URI is determined by the
person who owns the URI, who first determined what it points to."

Basic network models like message passing reflect the physical limits
of distributed systems, one of which is that statements about event
ordering (like x was *first* determined by A rather than B) can't be
known in general.

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Melvin Carvalho
<> wrote:
> On 3 January 2014 06:36, David Nicol <> wrote:
>> there is discussion of "the base technology" --- how about going one level
>> more abstract? Can we get a consensus on "message passing" as the base
>> paradigm?  Or do we, rather, favor remote procedure calls? Or something
>> else? Is there a difference? Am I raving?  Thank you
> I'd suggest the work is in line with:
> And using existing web standards such as linked data.
> The key take away from awww is that the medium is separated from the
> content, with URLs acting as "pointers".
> Therefore on any page you can write arbitrary data, the same data you may
> pass over a communications stream, such as http / https / websockets / xmpp
> etc.

Andrew Miller

Received on Friday, 3 January 2014 15:54:29 UTC