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

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

Expand Messages
  • Roy T. Fielding
    ... 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
    Message 1 of 15 , Apr 30, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      > 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.

      Short terminology may lessen universal understanding, but at least
      it saves me from typing too many phrases.

      ....Roy
    • Walden Mathews
      ... 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
      Message 2 of 15 , Apr 30, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        : > 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
        : topic.
        :
        : > 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?

        Walden
      • Jon Hanna
        ... 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
        Message 3 of 15 , 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
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.