[okfn-discuss] Taking the Open Service Definition to 1.0

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:16 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
> On 14/07/08 16:56, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>> Not if you check authoritative sources, like Google and Wikipedia. :)
>
> You should have spoken up earlier -- though the danger would be we would
> have never reached agreement :) Perhaps this is something we can keep open
> for the v1.1 (or v2.0) which will undoubtedly be necessary as more precise
> use-cases (and edge-cases) come in over time.

Probably good I didn't -- "software service" is kind of growing on me.

> It does seem that none of the suggested names were perfect (for example
> several people I've mentioned Open Network Services too think their about
> rules for ISPs).
>
>> This is the first I've heard of "software service" to mean SaaS, as
>> opposed to some kind of professional service around software or a
>> daemon running locally.  By contrast, "network service" is crystal
>> clear.  Maybe SaaS will naturally collapse to "software service" and
>> this will be moot.  Hopefully this definition will be wildly
>> successful and help make that happen.
>
> The key point is that we get the idea of 'freedom/openness' in relation to
> services clearly out there together with the reasons why it is important. As
> you say, while names are important they are certainly not the be all and end
> all the crucial point is to get across the ideas they represent (and to that
> end any label, if clearly understood, will be adequate).

Yep.

Mike