Re: [rest-discuss] Re: Relationship between HTTP and RDF/OWL
> Yes. I'm of the opinion that the main reason we use the word "resource"We use the term resource because "thing" includes those that have yet
> 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".
to be named or described, and thus cannot be individually considered
a resource by any system.
Short terminology may lessen universal understanding, but at least
it saves me from typing too many phrases.
- : > Roy's definition of resource:
: > More precisely, a resource R is a temporally varying membership
: > function M_R(t), which for time t maps to a set of entities, or
: > values, which are equivalent. The values in the set may be resource
: > representations and/or resource identifiers.
: That's my definition for a resource within a REST-based information
: system. That is because such a system creates an interface that
: causes that mapping to be the only observable definition of a resource.
: What the resource actually *is*, within a larger scope, is a different
: > This leads me to a conclusion I don't like: Two resources that are
: > owl:sameAs must respond to the same requests at the same time with the
: > same representations, because the resource *is* the membership
: > function.
: That depends on what you mean by "is". ;-)
Okay, that covers the case where the HTTP + OWL scope is to
be considered a "larger scope" than REST, and so the true definition
of "resource" lies elsewhere, perhaps.
But even scoped to REST, where does one find in Roy's definition
of resource a promise that two clients will ever receive identical
representations of a single resource? The fact that they are dereferencing
the same mapping is not enough to constitute such a promise. Hence
how do you test the assertion </resource1> <owl:sameAs> </resource2>,
and what good is it in the design of systems if it cannot be tested?
- Quoting "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@...>:
> > Yes. I'm of the opinion that the main reason we use the word "resource"Correct in a spec or a paper, but correct in a tutorial?
> > 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.
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).
" it has been truly said that hackers have even more words for
equipment failures than Yiddish has for obnoxious people." - jargon.txt