W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2003

REST as formalism of RFC 2396 was ... what the SW needs from the Web...

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 10:49:53 -0500
Message-ID: <037301c2ca09$903dc980$7c01a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

Sandro Hawke wrote:

> Roy, you seem to be saying that in the REST model, one cannot use a
> URI to identify the Sun.  In REST, as I read your explanation, the Sun
> is not a resource.

Sandro, I don't want to be so presumptuous as to speak for Roy, but you are
not framing the question correctly.

I wouldn't make that conclusion from what I've seen written.

Perhaps I am one of a small minority who believes fairly strongly that REST
and RDF are compatible. In particular, and at somepoint soon, hopefully, RDF
will learn to better deal with the need to tie the 'meaning' of a URI to
some function of the resolution of the URI. At present, RDF can only make
assertions about URIs but as TimBL says, the what the URIs themselves mean
is determined by RFC 2396. If we accept REST as the theory behind RFC 2396
then we need to integrate the REST meaning of a URI to the RDF assertions
made about the URI. So the question ought not be frame as REST can or cannot
do x, y, or z, but rather how can RDF make use of a REST determination of
the meaning of a URI -- to paraphrase, how does the mapping of a URI to
representation over time determine the meaning of a URI.

You may notice that I can eliminate the term 'resource' by substituting the
phrase 'meaning of a URI'.

Received on Saturday, 1 February 2003 11:12:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:36 UTC