W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > November to December 2001

RE: What is at the end of the namespace?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:14:28 -0500 (EST)
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
cc: <fielding@eBuilt.com>, <a.powell@ukoln.ac.uk>, <www-talk@w3.org>, <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0111160911170.15883-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

>
> > The HTTP
> > specification
> > can only talk about those aspects of the protocol that are relevant to
> > HTTP.
>
> You've just summed up, IMO, the whole issue in a nutshell. The
> HTTP URI is relevant only to the semantics of the HTTP protocol.
> And the HTTP protocol is for *access* of concrete web resources.
> Thus HTTP URIs are only intended to be meaningful to processes
> based on the HTTP protocol, which expect to *return* something.
> Therefore HTTP URIs are not intended to denote abstract concepts.

SOAP Web Service endpoints can be named with http:* URIs, and communicated
with via XML representations shipped over HTTP. But you can't download the
service itself; that wouldn't make sense. When you think of HTTP as a way
of talking to some (possibly authoritative) service about URI-named
resources, this whole URI thing makes a bit more sense. If you think of it
as a glorified form of file-sharing (like NFS, Samba etc) URIs for
abstractions seem odd.

Dan
Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 09:14:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:27 GMT