- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 23:12:37 -0500 (EST)
- To: danbri@w3.org (Dan Brickley)
- Cc: timbl@w3.org (Tim Berners-Lee), jborden@mediaone.net (Jonathan Borden), sean@mysterylights.com (Sean B. Palmer), connolly@w3.org (Dan Connolly), www-rdf-interest@w3.org (www-rdf-interest)
Dan Brickley wrote; > Am I right in thinking one can use HTTP 1.1 (the protocol) to ask an HTTP > service about non-HTTP URIs? (Don't web-caches basically work this way?) For sure. GET is suitable for retrieving a representation of anything with identity (ditto for other HTTP methods, because they were designed to be this general). > I'm still of the opinion that many HTTP-named resources aren't network > serializable, most notably web services (online thermometers, coffee pots > etc, alongside the usual databases, web indexes...). The coffee pot itself isn't serializable, but representations of it may be; images, HTML, CoffeePotML, etc.. I'm not sure what you mean by 'web service' in this context, but all of those examples have representations that are serializable. > HTTP's notion of > document seems pretty weak, if it allows services and the like to count; > weaker still if it includes all the stuff that one can ask an HTTP server > about regardless of the species of name used. As Aaron stated, HTTP has no notion of document. It knows of resources and representations of those resources, and it has a pretty strong notion of both. I would really like to see this terminology replace the (IMO) confusing document-centric one that's also in use. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Wednesday, 26 December 2001 23:12:38 UTC