Re: nathans definition of an IR

[Sorry, I accidentally hit 'send' prematurely.]

On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 22:07 -0500, David Booth wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 01:16 +0000, Nathan wrote:
> > even shorter:
> > 
> >    IR = something you could potentially GET a copy of
> 
> That sounds like it is trying to go down the same path as the existing
> AWWW definition of IR
> http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#def-information-resource

I think that path is fatally misguided.  From an engineering
perspective, it doesn't matter what is behind the interface.  All that
matters is that the resource obeys the interface contract by following
the protocol.

The relevance that IRs have to semantic web architecture is that they
play a *role* in the architecture of the web, as the things that have
awww:representations.

This is very much analogous to the roles played by senders and
recipients in a protocol specification that talks about message
transmission.  It is pointless to try to define what things in the
universe are innately "senders" and what things are "non-senders".  If
something adheres to the protocol and sends a message, then that thing
*is* a sender.  Period.  

Similarly, it is pointless to try to define what things in the universe
are innately IRs and what things are non-IRs.  If something adheres to
the HTTP protocol and provides a awww:representation in response to a
GET, then it *is* an IR.

 
-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.

Received on Monday, 28 February 2011 03:53:54 UTC