Re: [rest-discuss] Jot, RNA and ReST vs MoST
- S. Alexander Jacobson wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Seairth Jacobs wrote:But you will need something in addition to the schema, unless that
>>So you are saying that I should be able to have an uber-client that would
>>know how to act with *any* resource merely be examing its schema?
> I am saying that if YOU know the schema of the
> resource that should be all you need to have have
> a client interacts with it using HTTP. You
> shouldn't need an API in addition to the schema.
the names/structures in that schema are very finely specified, ie
using a formal logic. At that point it would stop being a schema and
become an ontology of the sort the semantic web people are
advocating. Without that level of specification, you only have the
API signatures, which are not adequate (any old OO salt knows this).
Interoperation requires contracts to be grounded in behaviour aslo.
I agree with Seairth. MoST to me, sounds like a content model that
would be a compliment to REST, but not a replacement. Certainly
there's only so far you can go with mimetypes and conneg.
> I mean per URI out-of-band data.You might want to say what you mean by 'mean'. For me here, 'mean'
> With MoST, given a URI, you can GET a resource and
> know what the resulting content-type, schema, and
> data actually mean.
means machine processable metadata. Otherwise it's not so different
from what we have now. Unless MoST has a formal semantics / model
theory, I'm in dispute with your assertion and even them I think
there are a few people on the list who will disagree with you.
> The meta-location header is an admission of theOk, I think I get where you're coming from. Have you heard of speech
> failure of ReST to deliver the
> visibility/interoperability it promises.
> Meta-location is an admision that you have to
> associate new interface semantics with each URI,
> and that all ReST gives you is the guarantee that
> the interface will use GET, POST, PUT, and DELETE
> as verb *names* and that GET will be idempotent.
> Thats pretty weak.
Bill de hÓra