Re: Filters as views (ISSUE-45)

January 11 2016 10:14 PM, "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
>> is not valid, because representations can have URLs
>> (since the notion of resource/representation is relative).
> 
> Nope. I don't think that's true. URIs identify resources, not
> representations thereof. A URI is a uniform *resource* identifier after all.
> Anyway, I guess we don't need to discuss this further as it is not really
> the topic of this discussion :-)

Sorry to jump in on the discussion here, but it seems to me that the is precisely the root topic of this discussion. Your understanding of resource/representation is why you drafted the view proposal in a specific way.

I however do agree with others that the distinction is fluid and in the end anything with a URI is a resource. You can have both

/video
/video.avi

The latter is no less of a resource. There is an identifier, hence isn't it a resource albeit with only one representation? 

Similarly I find a filtered collection a resource in its own rights. Of course provided that it's identified by a parametrized URL.

Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2016 09:02:04 UTC