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

RE: [rest-discuss] Restful URIs

Expand Messages
  • Justin Sampson
    ... Ah, holier-than-thou... ... No, they re not the same information. The translator has added various interpretational decisions based on the appropriate
    Message 1 of 32 , Feb 6, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Jeff Bone wrote:

      > On Feb 6, 2004, at 4:40 PM, Justin Sampson wrote:
      >
      > > The notion that we're talking about only one resource here
      > > doesn't make any sense to me. These are two different
      > > human-language translations of some document, which sure feel
      > > like different resources to me.
      >
      > Ah, glasshoppah...

      Ah, holier-than-thou...

      > They are the same resource because they are the same
      > *information.* The two are separate *representations* of the
      > same abstract *resource* --- and the resource itself is the
      > thing named by the URI.

      No, they're not the same information. The translator has added
      various interpretational decisions based on the appropriate
      cultural contexts. The various documents may even need to relate
      to each other in different ways.

      > If this isn't clear, imagine this: what if you had some magic
      > piece of software which translated documents in any natural
      > language to any other natural language on the fly. What would
      > you call the translations themselves vs. the information they
      > contained? The translations are representations. The
      > information itself is the resource.

      The URI doesn't say how something is generated; different URI may
      be served up from different files or dynamically generated in
      various ways.

      > Similarly: a novel in five different languages is still the
      > same *novel.* Five different printings of that novel --- same
      > or different languages --- are different *books.* When I speak
      > of "Beggars in Spain" by Nancy Kress, I'm talking about what
      > she wrote --- not my copy of it on my bookshelf.

      I can still choose from the crappy electronic translation, the
      poetic Shakespearean translation, the contemporary readable
      translation, etc. What the original author wrote is one thing;
      any particular translation of it is quite another. The question
      is not whether they are the same "novel", but whether it is
      useful and desireable to return representations of all of them
      from GETs on a single URI.

      Justin
    • Roy T. Fielding
      ... That may be true as well, but I was referring to human factors: WWW server developers are far more paranoid than DBAs because they get abused when they
      Message 32 of 32 , Feb 11, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wednesday, February 11, 2004, at 07:55 PM, Mark Baker wrote:
        > On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 05:56:27PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
        >> The rationale for REST being different from RDA, aside from greater
        >> flexibility of implementation, is that remote data access interfaces
        >> are extremely susceptible to abuse by rogue clients.
        >
        > My hunch is that those are the same; that less implementation
        > flexibility yields more predictable forms of attack. Or perhaps you
        > had some more general concern in mind?

        That may be true as well, but I was referring to human factors:
        WWW server developers are far more paranoid than DBAs because they
        get abused when they aren't paranoid enough. Databases, in contrast,
        are sold by feature list, just like a word processor. The WWW server
        (or firewall) is supposed to protect the DB from the real world.

        ....Roy
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.