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: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 10:57:35 -0400
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0908020757m451874b2v1325096f78ac837d@mail.gmail.com>
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 GMT

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