Re: Are MGET descriptions workable/necessary?

On Monday, Nov 24, 2003, at 01:55 Europe/Helsinki, ext Phil Dawes wrote:

> Hi Patrick,
>
> Patrick Stickler writes:
>>
>> On Saturday, Nov 22, 2003, at 01:21 Europe/Helsinki, ext Phil Dawes
>> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> If this is the case, why bother with the MGET stuff at all? It seems
>>> like a lot of hassle for something you can't even rely on.
>>
>> Because, in order to bootstrap the SW, there must be a standardized
>> protocol by which, having only a URI, one can obtain an authoritative
>> description of the resource denoted by that URI.
>>
>
> Why authoritative?
>

Uh. Er. Because of trust, of course.

> Wouldn't a bunch of non-authoritative term brokers built up by social
> concensus do the same job, but without the problems that have
> generated so much noise on this list.

Hardly.

>
> It appears to me that decoupling the terms themselves from the
> mechanisms of looking up their descriptions and meanings is of
> paramount importance to creating a scalable, resilient SW.

Eh? And how pray tell is that actually supposed to work, much less
provide a scalable resilient SW?

Decouple the terms from their meaning or how one gets at their meaning?

Think about what you're suggesting...

Patrick


>
> Cheers,
>
> Phil
>
>