Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4336Re: [rest-discuss] Re: Relationship between HTTP and RDF/OWL

Expand Messages
  • Jon Hanna
    May 6, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Quoting "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@...>:

      > > Yes. I'm of the opinion that the main reason we use the word "resource"
      > > rather than the word "thing" is that using the former makes us seem a
      > > bit smarter than if we use the latter. However the nuances of "thing"
      > > are probably more apposite than the nuances of "resource".
      >
      > We use the term resource because "thing" includes those that have yet
      > to be named or described, and thus cannot be individually considered
      > a resource by any system.

      Correct in a spec or a paper, but correct in a tutorial?

      To many people "Resource" implies ownership and belonging. To many others
      "Resource" implies membership of some sort of category. Hence we frequently get
      discussion of how <http://example.net/Ireland> could or could not be the same
      resource as <http://example.org/Ireland> when the former is "owned" by
      example.net and the latter by example.org and talk of REST resources vs. RDF
      resources vs. OWL resources vs. DAML resources.

      Since generally people don't try to say anything about things they don't have an
      identifier for I think "thing" has it's place in non-normative descriptions of
      resources (unless there are further ways in which thing is wrong).

      --
      Jon Hanna
      <http://www.hackcraft.net/>
      "…it has been truly said that hackers have even more words for
      equipment failures than Yiddish has for obnoxious people." - jargon.txt
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic