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

RE: yet another sidetrack on what a URI identifies

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:36:42 -0800
Message-ID: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C1076FA1E5@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

> > Unfortunately, your model doesn't work for me, in trying to to
> > effectively use URIs in knowledge representation languages (like
RDF).
> 
> Why?  Every statement to that effect has so far been disproven, not

Really?

> that breaks in the REST model?

First, I thought we have established long ago that such things are
insignificant to REST.  REST only needs to be able to identify
representation dispensers, and *sometimes* a particular representation
(etag).  That is just fine for HTTP, but HTTP has practically nothing to
do with KR, and such laissez-faire identification is not suitable for
KR.

> for the metadata that is included in HTTP responses so that the
> client has an interoperable clue as to what you are talking about.

What does that have to do with KR or RDF?

> semantics of a Web to GSM SMS gateway using POST.  I already did that
> stuff seven years ago, so I expect a little more than talk at this

And you did a great job.  But I wonder what that has to do with KR?
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 20:36:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:15 GMT