Talk:Mashup (web application hybrid)

message: I am wondering if the naming "mashup" isn't kind of imprecise or a mix-up of spellings, and whether the name for the phenomenon discussed here should be "mesh-up" rather than "mash-up"?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb "to mash" as "to reduce or beat to a mash", or "(in brewing) to mix (powdered malt) with hot water to form wort". None of them quite fits the notion we are trying to describe in this article, namely combining data from different sources into one application.
On the other hand, the verb "to mesh" is related to the noun "mesh" like what you have in a net, and can be defined as "to cause something to resemble a network". Now I'm not a native English speaker, however, couldn't one think of the combining of data into one application as some kind of "tying a net"? I.e. wouldn't "mesh-up" be a much more correct metaphor (and probably also the original one) than "mash-up"? Opinions?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiordiligi (talk • contribs) 11:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: A conversant contributor please add an explanation of consumer mashups (done in the browser) versus enterprise mashups (done on the server).   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmerson (talk • contribs) 17:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Enterprise mashups

message: It would be great if someone could add a little history of mashups. when was the first mashup? how have mashups evolved? What were the enabling technologies? etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.100.39.250 (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A Little History Please

message: 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)
thread_title: Uncategorised entries

message: 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)
replies: text: That's called "application integration".  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 01:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Content vs. Web Tool (application?) Mashup

message: "The etymology of this term almost certainly derives from its similar use in pop music..."<BR>
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)
thread_title:  Shouldn't titles be reserved for the most COMMON usage ?? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Section of Mashup examples should be added to this page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Added a link to the Windows Live Local article. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Business Week Links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Marketing language 

message: I have too many comments and disagreements with the information on this page and would like to help in revamping it.  I do not mind helping with the material, however I need to get some of my ideas out in the open for others to review.
----
#I would like to remove everything that claims a mashup is similar to a portal and is somehow about data aggregation. iGoogle aggregates data, but I do not think it is a mashup.
#Let's get rid of examples like youMashTube.  Unless I am missing something here.  I went to the site, and it seemed all their data came from youtube, and that they had a nice user interface for it.  In my definition.  I do not feel that a nifty new user interface falls into the mashup category.  While it is true that a lot of mashups have nice new user interfaces.  I would consider the lastest UI technologies as a part of Web 2.0 in general and RIA.
#News aggregation -- Digg example.  I do not digg that often, but doesn't this site just aggregate data?  They do not really mash it do they?
#"Mashups versus portals" section has to go.  Along with "Architectural aspects of mashups" section and "Information overload section"
#I think once we start getting precise about what we call a mashup, then we can just call it a Mashup and remove this web-application hybrid language.
#The types of mashups section needs some edits too.
Brianpwolfe (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Makeover Suggestions 

message: My core grounding belief about this goes something like this..:  "A mashup combines data from more than one source and integrates that data to create something new and unique.  The merging of datasets provides unique events that we can act on, which gives the mashup it's uniqueness.  At it's simplest form we define a mashup as being the intersection of this data combination and event generation process.  However in practice the mashup will usually provide more features around the data and events.  Typically we see a nice presentation of the information.  We also see new processes and events being generated and ran as a result of these events.
I hope I have convinced you that a mashup has to have this generation of unique events that was not possible before the merging of the data or functionality.
That brings me to another point...  I keep using the term data and two or more data sources.  While this is true and fine, and it is what we see almost all the mashups doing now.  Especially the public mahsups.  I also think there is another element which we could call 'function' so with this, we could also have a mashup by mixing functionality from two or more services and creating something new.  The best exanmples for this are in the cloud computing, web-services, public API space.  For example a company could mix up some Amazon web services, and also mix up some services from another business.  They may or may not throw in a service of it's own, but they market and sell the complete package as a service or a process.  I think this is a mashup as well, and I do not know the best way to combine this into a single definition without confusing others right now.
----
I will keep trying to iron out my ideas and provide more examples.  I am just not happy with all the definitions and explanations I have seen so far.
Brianpwolfe (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I will take a stab at a definition that I need to refine and get feedback on.... 

message: A seperate article was created for business mashups which seems unnecessary. I've added some of the content to this article but here is the rest. I would add it but am not familiar with this topic. Smartse (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content from business mashups 

message: has tried several times to break Business Mashup into a separate article and  and  have reverted it back several times (which I agree with). I restored the content for Business Mashup to this article once already.  I don't see any reason to break Business Mashups into a separate article as this article is nowhere near too long. I recommend that we keep the content here for the foreseeable future, until it gets too unweildy.  Does anyone besides BusinessMashup disagree? Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking out Business Mashup 

message: The only reason for a Mashup enabler to exist is to become a part of a Mashup application. Both articles have been tagged for improvement. I believe that the effort to merge these articles would produce more comprehensive coverage of the topic and a higher quality article. I would start by adding a "Components" section with "Mashup enabler" as one of the subsections. Any other suggestions? John Harvey (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Diff, with no attempt to tidy/harmonise content. -- Trevj (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal - Mashup enabler into Mashup (web application hybrid) 

message: I was searching for a List of Wikipedia Mashups. Does that exist? If not, would be nice to have. I've put some here, on my page.  - Cy21 (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, a list would be useful - please add if it can be done to Wikipedia guidelines. Mikebar (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just found out, not categorised that way but they are listed here:  Wikipedia:Tools, Wikipedia:Searching and Commons:Tools. Cy21 (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Mashups List?

message: The lead paragraph claims "The term mashup originally comes from British - West Indies slang meaning to be intoxicated, or as a description for something or someone not functioning as intended." Surely software use of term comes from use in music, and there is no reference to this origin in the entry on that use. I couldn't even find evidence that this is a UK-WI slang term with that meaning, let alone that it's where this usage is derived from. I suggest deleting this unless some sort of support can be offered for the claim. Faff296 (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Indian Slang? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mashup (web application hybrid). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120718175204/http://sw.deri.org/2009/09/financial-data/ to http://sw.deri.org/2009/09/financial-data/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://archive.is/20120718175204/http://sw.deri.org/2009/09/financial-data/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Johnnie Bob (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed