|
RadiusIM: Another Sniff-Test |
|
|
|
|
Written by Webmaster
|
|
Friday, 25 August 2006 |
In an earlier post, I outlined a few examples to help demonstrate how the mashup vernacular presented on this site can be applied. Today I read my daily news feed from TechCrunch and spent some time looking at RadiusIM. As I played with the application, my question was -- Is RadiusIM a mashup?
This New York based company uses Web 2.0 enablers such as Ajax to blend Chat and Authentication services with location based services to create a new web utility that empowers people to visualize the people who are online using a instant messaging client regardless of there location or IM service provider.
|
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 25 August 2006 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Webmaster
|
|
Friday, 21 July 2006 |
At Mashup Camp II, I realized that there were two strong communities participating in the camp: Service API Providers and Developers. From a content perspective we could classify these two segments of campers into Content Providers and Content Consumers with respect to the assembly of mashups.
During my introduction to the campers, I eluded to this segmentation and suggested that my focus was on an element of the mashup ecosystem that could help simplify this producer/consumer relationship. Specifically, I introduced the notion of mashup maker.
|
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 21 July 2006 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Webmaster
|
|
Thursday, 20 July 2006 |
Now that I have driven the proverbial stake into the ground to establish a vernacular to guide discussions around Enterprise Mashups, let us see if by example these terms actually hold up under a sniff-test.
For starters lets begin with the baseline testcase of Teachers On the Run. As Clay Shirky describes, this application was thrown together quickly by a few students who then made it available to the broader student body for a specific short-term event --- class registration for the upcoming semester. This seems to easily fit the category of a Situational Application. It was informal, ad-hoc, and pertinent to a small set of people concerned about rating information (teacher reviews). It was also only relevant to the student body during the duration of class registration. While the information and capabilities could have been used beyond the registration period, the social need for this new utility would not become important until the next semester.
|
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 20 July 2006 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Webmaster
|
|
Wednesday, 19 July 2006 |
Some colleagues question my pragmatic nature to harden our definition of a mashup. While at MC2, I commented to the organizers that the broad scope of our understanding of a mashup made it difficult to articulate this new technology domain. As expected (and appropriate for the MC2 community) we did not want to stifle innovation with terminology constraints. Yet when I speak to customers to help them understand if and how mashups can be applied to their business requirements, it is beneficial to have a vernacular to help frame the discussion.
While I realize my terms and definitions may not be perfect, I feel it is valuable to put a stake in the ground as a gauge for classifying some of the innovation going on in the Web 2.0 space around mashups.
|
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 19 July 2006 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Concepts 