W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Historical - Re: Proposed IETF/W3C task force: "Resource meaning" Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other

From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 07:46:20 -0700
Message-ID: <4A75A6BC.7070906@oracle.com>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
Would weather.com where I type in my zipcode to get local weather be 
classified as a service?
Clearly Google maps is a service.  Are all interactive sites services?
All the best, Ashok


Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> Nice concise history :)
>
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Tim Berners-Lee<timbl@w3.org> wrote:
>   
>> I would like to see what the documents all look like if edited to use the
>> words Document and Thing, and eliminate Resource. That's my best bet as to
>> two english words which mean as close as we can get to what we want. Note
>> however that the web is a new system, a design in which new concepts are
>> created, so we can't expect english words to exist to capture exactly the
>> concepts. So we take those nearby and abuse them as little as we
>> can as far as we can tell at the time, and then write them in initial caps to
>> recognize that that is what we have done.
>>     
>
> If you were to go in that direction, I think you ought to consider
> adding "Service" as a third category. Thing at the top, with the
> children document and service disjoint (not a complete partition,
> obviously).
>
> The reason is that services operate very differently than documents,
> even though they can sometimes return documents. And what we consider
> to be reasonable representations (web sense) of documents have a very
> different flavor than the representations returned by services. If
> this distinction was clear then we might have a much better go at
> starting to more clearly document expectations on what are reasonable
> representations to return in each case, something that is sorely
> missing in the current documentation. (The usual answer - the
> representation is whatever the owner wants it to be - not very
> satisfying).
>
> As an example we could then say that POSTs to a URI that denotes a
> document are intended to change that document. And we could contrast
> that with POSTs to services, which do all sorts of things, for example
> run queries.
>
> -Alan
>
>
> -Alan
>
>
>   
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 14:47:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:15 GMT