[Macro error: Can't call the script because the name "viewDirectoryBox" hasn't been defined.]
The Internet Services Model (ISM)
I have developed a model for measuring the progress of the computing industry from an ìInternet Servicesî perspective. This perspective is the Internet Services Model (ISM). This model is not limited to a ìservices technologyî conversation, but also includes a lexicon to discuss the model. Without exception, a project of this nature requires establishing a common languageóor a common lexiconófor discussing ideas and having a meaningful conversation. It is not necessary or even assumed that the industry will adopt the lexicon presented here, it will simply be the basis for commonality of discussion for the distinction and definition of terms and technologies.
The Internet Services Model has a semi-formal structure of definition to it. This structure categorizes services into families and classes. Each class of service has a set of corresponding access mechanisms. Traditionally, these access mechanisms are referred to as ìprotocolsî and ìinterfaces.î
The most important new aspect of the Internet Services Model is a new level of service interoperability and independence through evolving access mechanism technology. In other words, we are about to experience a significant shift in the way protocols and interfaces work. The key to the future success of the Internet Services Model is a dynamic application protocol framework. Things of course go beyond protocols, the Internet Services Model, fueled by the services that can emerge as a result of the dynamic application protocol framework, will resolve themselves into a network centric system that no one owns, no one controls, and everyone benefits fromóI refer to it as the Internet Operating System.
The Infrastructure Paradox
Before getting too much into the vision of the Internet Operating System, it is useful to cover the ìnatureî of the infrastructure business. The infrastructure business is an enigma. This is because it is built around an interesting paradox. I refer to this as ìThe Infrastructure Paradox.î
Vendors of infrastructure have two prime objectives:
- Generate shareholder value.
- Foster infrastructure ubiquity.
Each of these prime objectives is in direct opposition to each other. The extreme of generating shareholder value would sacrifice infrastructure ubiquity. The extreme of fostering infrastructure ubiquity would sacrifice shareholder value. Without getting too ìZenî in the matter, the trick of success is to constantly balance the two prime objectives.
It is completely possible to at once generate shareholder value and to foster infrastructure ubiquity. (More on this later.) In the current state, the industry is out of balance with these objectives. This is because the key to balancing the objectives is innovation. There is currently a major infrastructure growth deterrent keeping the entire industry out of balance, or in darkness; a state of Web Noir.
Feel free to leave a response.
cb