- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:25:36 -0500
- To: "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: ietf-xml-use@imc.org, www-tag@w3.org
Not quite. If path dependency for correct choices requires correct information, you still have the responsibility to educate the educators. Then there are those nasty syntax issues. You can't ever go home or on vacation again because the supply of people to be educated is endless. :-) Would the quote be more correct if it said: "The Web is the set of *representations* that can be identified by a URI". If true, then we know what the Web is. Can someone tell me why given the URI identifies a WSDL, SOAP is a bad thing? If an information owner chooses to hide representations behind a single URI, isn't that simply a bet on the payoffs of hiding the representations? Fielding says, this is a bad bet but bases that on "unforeseen uses". So he assumes payoffs but can't enumerate all of them. The information is imperfect (second degree path dependency). The REST advocates claim a potential third degree path dependency but can't prove it exists except insofar as the benefits of common interfaces are asserted. At some point, some champion of SOAP must enumerate and defend the SOAP payoffs. Then and only then can one begin to determine if a third degree path dependency exists. len -----Original Message----- From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com] > My favorite definition for the web was one TimBL used a long time ago: > "The Web is the set of 'things' that can be identified by a URI" (and that > included physical objects!). So, while you're only half kidding, I actually > prefer the idea. ;-) Aha! Thus we can disband the TAG and most of the W3C and the IETF HTTP work and turn all the work over to the URI group and go back to writing code and taking vacations. I *like* this approach:) -Tim
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 17:26:20 UTC