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

Re: [rest-discuss] Restful URIs

Expand Messages
  • Vincent D Murphy
    ... i think a representation can be a resource itself, and also be a representation of another resource. i haven t seen anything to suggest otherwise (in
    Message 1 of 32 , Feb 6, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      On 6 Feb 2004, at 23:48, Justin Sampson wrote:
      > 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.

      i think a representation can be a resource itself, and also be
      a representation of another resource. i haven't seen anything
      to suggest otherwise (in theory) since i've started RESTing.

      so in this example, the translation is a representation of
      the novel, but is also a resource in its own right. or
      maybe the translation is just a resource which has a
      'translation_of' relationship with the novel (dare i mention
      RDF?).

      but the key point is that the boundary between resource and
      representation is in the eye of the beholder. there are no hard
      and fast rules to distinguish between the two.

      > 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.

      quite.
    • 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.