- From: Tomasz Pluskiewicz <tomasz@t-code.pl>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:01:17 +0000
- To: public-hydra@w3.org
January 11 2016 10:14 PM, "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote: >> is not valid, because representations can have URLs >> (since the notion of resource/representation is relative). > > Nope. I don't think that's true. URIs identify resources, not > representations thereof. A URI is a uniform *resource* identifier after all. > Anyway, I guess we don't need to discuss this further as it is not really > the topic of this discussion :-) Sorry to jump in on the discussion here, but it seems to me that the is precisely the root topic of this discussion. Your understanding of resource/representation is why you drafted the view proposal in a specific way. I however do agree with others that the distinction is fluid and in the end anything with a URI is a resource. You can have both /video /video.avi The latter is no less of a resource. There is an identifier, hence isn't it a resource albeit with only one representation? Similarly I find a filtered collection a resource in its own rights. Of course provided that it's identified by a parametrized URL.
Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2016 09:02:04 UTC