Talk:Mashup (web application hybrid)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Uncategorised entries

When one can quantify information and the usefulness thereof, define operators for the sum or multiplication of information, and show that a mashup performs these operations, then we can say that mashups can make information exponentially more useful. Minor edit EnsGabe 20:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a question I keep asking and still dont see an answer covered in this article, namely, What is the difference between a mashup and a portal. They both combine source material from different sources into a single web page. So, what distinquishes one from another?

PolyGlot 13:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a few xquestions about this definition...

 "a web application created using the public 
  interface or API of two or more third party
  applications."

First, web application is an established term with a somewhat narrow meaning.

I'm wondering if we could expand this to say a website OR web application.

Second, I personally use a number of RSS feeds as sources in my mashups (example: http://xboxradar.com). Likewise, some of the providers such as eBay and Google AdSense have mashable information provided via Javascript includes.

Again, wondering if we could expand the definition to clearly include these types of sources.

In summary, I think a more encompassing though still accurate deinifinition would read something to the effect of...

 "a website or web application that combines information from more than one source."

The definition could then go on to talk about the various methods for sourcing the information.

Any thoughts appreciated.

Toddlevy 15:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC) toddlevy [at] hotmail [dot] com

I think Todd's suggestion is valid - to make the description more "generic", rather than making reference to web applications as the source. However, I think that inclusion of the fact that the sources are web/internet sources, and that there is an established API (as compared to "screen-scraping") to make this information available is an important part of the definition.

Stevesawyer

But a website that combines information would be cnn.com or bbc.com, not a mashup. I'd say "website" is collection of urls, but a "web application" is a narrower collection of urls for a single purpose. A "Web Application" tends to mean something narrower yet, where the caps signify a particular system for serving web applications. In short the existing definition seems better to me.


JohnJBarton 04:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


I agree with Todd about the missing "website" part, but API is an essential part of the definition (as oposed to screens-scrapping, as Steve mention). So, my suggestion is:

 "a website or a web application created using the
  public interface or API of two or more third party
  applications."

GuiAmbros 19:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC) nospamwikipedia /at/ ambros /dot/ com /dot/ br


Shouldn't "API" be spelled out before the acronym?

[edit] Video Map Mashup

I added virtualvideomap.com as an example of a "Video Mashup". What do you think about combining the titles of "Video Mashup" and "Map Mashup" sections?

I also corrected a grammatical error.

Let me know.

webmaster@virtualvideomap.com

[edit] Content vs. Web Tool (application?) Mashup

I came to this talk page because the current definition of mashup on the article page seems to focus on the idea that a mashup is content. (I wanted to comment that a mashup (imho, but who didn't know what a mashup even could be a few weeks ago) could also be a website created by mixing and matching web applications (or similar). This (talk) page seems to address that (iiuc), but the article doesn't, or not very clearly.

To pick a very bad example (because it may not have any chance of working), couldn't a mashup be a website created with (say) some combination of Plone, Ruby on Rails, and whatever else? (regardless of where the content comes from)

--Rhkramer 15:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's called "application integration". -- ShinmaWa(talk) 01:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shouldn't titles be reserved for the most COMMON usage ??

"The etymology of this term almost certainly derives from its similar use in pop music..."
Yeas, it almost certainly does. Which is why the term "Mashup" should be reserved for pop music, and the top line should say "For website usage see: Bastard Webmonkeying."


Apropos terminology... How about a link from this page to the term bricolage which (in anthropology and cultural studies) means more or less the same thing as 'mashup', only in the 'real world'. I think we can get some useful perspective on 'mashups' by comparing them with the literature on bricolage. (This is another fine example of the internet community thinking they've made something up which in fact has been around for millennia).

217.74.218.254 13:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Brennan Young

[edit] A Section of Mashup examples should be added to this page

When a user comes across this page, he might want to see a live example of mashuup website, however, in this page, we do NOT have such kind of links.

  • I agree, why not pick some popular sites from programmableweb.com, etc and link to them?? for instance, veloroutes.org uses google maps, usgs elevation data, geonames reverse geo-location, flickr api, youtube api... just an example but there should at least be some links to actual mashups.. 63.225.174.47
  • Examples would be helpful, but it's not clear to me which ones to pick. The ones currently listed aren't necessarily the most popular or most instructive ones to show, for instance. RaymondYee 20:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Without disagreeing with the principle of having examples, I don't find an encyclopedic purpose to the current list of examples. The programmableweb link provides all the examples anyone needs for the limited purpose of simply seeing examples. Based on WP:NOT#LINK, I suggest that any further references to specific mashup sites be done to clarify, or serve as references for, specific points in the article. Consequently, I'm removing the links to individual example sites. Rich Janis (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added a link to the Windows Live Local article.

In addition to the existing link to Google Map. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.154.35.246 (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Link is refused for several reasons: on the Wikipedia page of Windows Live Local there is no mention of an API that would allow developers to use the facility of this service to build new application upon it (Google Map's Wikipedia article does speak about it). So this link should not be place yet in the see also section. Further more, and this explain why it has been simply removed. After browsing on Windows Live Local web site, there does not seems to be a mention on its API either! Therefore, you cannot build new application on this service, then this service cannot be used to build new mashup. As a conclusion, this link is irrelevant in the section see also, and in the mashup article. --Huygens 25 23:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Please look for a link says "Developers" on the bottom of http://map.live.com/, or http://dev.live.com/virtualearth/. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.60.179.169 (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
OK, thank you for the information, I have found it but as mentioned I would not put it in the see also, because the Windows Live Local article on Wikipedia does not talk about the possible usage of this service for other web sites (using the SDK). The see also section is related to the mashup article, I mean that those articles in this section should speak also of mashup or possible use of the service for other web site. I would like to have your understanding that we can put the link in this section only if the Windows Live Local article is updated with relevant, insightful information. What I propose for the time being. We add the link to this Microsoft service article somewhere else in the mashup article by mentioning that it is possible to build mashup application that uses map from this service or others. If you do not write any objection, I will update the article in a couple of days. --Huygens 25 16:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Business Week Links

The links to Business Week remains while all others got removed except Programmableweb.com. Is it because Business Week has more money? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.154.35.246 (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Yep, one could ask that... However, the first link to business week is of interest for the article (under Articles about mashups). But the links in the section "Sites about mashups" are questionable. If it was considered that a site like http://www.webmashup.com/ should be removed, then those two left should also be removed. --Huygens 25 23:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If you don't know what a mashup is, this article isn't helpful

The "lead paragraph," which is actually just a lead sentence, is just about the only thing that provides a clue as to what a mashup really is, if you don't already know. This is then followed by the statement "It is sometimes created as a critique or commentary on an existing work or product," and the unitiated reader wonders, how does a web application combining content from different sources constitute a critique or commentary on those. Nor would the uninitiated have an idea what the difference between a mashup using a public interface vs. not using a public interface. To really get a sense of what's being described, you have to read the outside articles or follow the links, and in that regard, it seems to fail as an encyclopedia article. Drlith 12:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no definition for someone who doesn't know what a mashup is. What seems to be a definition only makes the reader more confused.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cubique (talk • contribs) 23:26, April 10, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marketing language

The language in at least the lead paragraph is awful, full of buzzwords and mostly devoid of meaning. 213.100.20.12 23:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)