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: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:29:21 -0400
Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, 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>
Message-Id: <41A62FE4-89BD-476A-AFBA-77CC2A25C693@la-grange.net>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>

Le 4 août 2009 à 06:24, Tim Berners-Lee a écrit :
>>> Basically we are adding a layer of meaning by fragmenting a  
>>> generic meaning:
>>> From "Resource" to "Document, Thing and Service". It seems like  
>>> going from
>>> abstract to more defined material things. This might help  
>>> momentarily but
>>> will just push the limit to the next iteration of "abuse", the  
>>> next layer of
>>> fragmentation.
>>
>
> This isn't fragmentation.

Hmm nothing negative in my word fragmentation. I meant Resource being  
specialized in terms of the context.

> I am only talking about "Resource", not about other terms,
> and the problem is simply that it has been used differently in  
> different specs and sometimes ambiguously.

As in different meanings? or a generic meaning covering everything aka
a Resource can be a Thing, a Resource can be a Document, a Resource  
can be a Service. (which is what I meant)


>
>> We call this "categorization". It doesn't fragment, it organizes.

what I meant.

>> With the organization come benefits: predictability, auditability,
>> understandability.

as long as we share the same understanding for the organization, yes.
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 19:30:55 GMT

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