- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 10:57:35 -0400
- To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.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>
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 10:46 AM, ashok malhotra<ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote: > Would weather.com where I type in my zipcode to get local weather be > classified as a service? yes > Clearly Google maps is a service. Are all interactive sites services? Mostly, I think. At the border would be, e.g. a site that uses the user agent string to provide a different experience for reading a book - perhaps search with a book. However I would still expect an ordinary GET to retrieve a manifestation of the book in one of the typical formats for such. -Alan > > > 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 14:58:34 UTC