- From: Michael Mealling <michael@verisignlabs.com>
- Date: 18 Feb 2003 18:28:38 -0500
- To: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
- Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@us.ibm.com>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, "'Cutler, Roger \"\"(RogerCutler)'" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org, www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 18:02, Assaf Arkin wrote: > Is the 'means to access a resource' a resource in itself? > > I think it's a matter of scope. When I manage a Web site I consider each > network card to be a resource, each HTTP server to be a resource, and each > HTML document to be a resource. When I look at services I take network cards > and HTTP servers for granted, but I still think of services as resources. > When I look at data I ignore the service. Its incorrect to assert that how you use the term 'resource' is the same a) the same as everyone elses and b) has anything at all to do with the definition of the (capital R) Resource as defined in RFC 2396. RFC 2396 defines the term Resource completely. The only thing that word and the one found in the english dictinoary have in common is the letters used to compose them..... Maybe we should have just made up a new nonsense word for 2396.... -MM
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2003 18:32:42 UTC