Re: Are MGET descriptions workable/necessary?

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?

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.

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.



Received on Monday, 24 November 2003 12:30:55 UTC