- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 09:06:51 -0700
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, WWW TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
Patrick Stickler wrote: > >... > > Using an http: URL to denote a rock in my back yard or the concept of > 'spicy' does not make either of those things web-accessible or > the latter concrete. > > And if those URLs really *do* denote those non-web-accessible things, > then putting anything else at that URL which would be accessible > is a bug. Nobody is talking about "putting something else at that URL." Rather they are talking about making it such that doing a GET on the rock's URI returns a *representation of the rock*. The thing at the URL is still the rock. But rocks can't move over the Internet so the GET fetches the next best thing, a representation (picture, web page, whatever). >... > If the resource is not web-accessible, then it should not be denoted > by a URI that is dereferencable -- or if it is dereferenced, nothing > should be returned. I don't think the term "web-accessible" is well-defined but I think you seem to mean that "if a resource is other than a bag of bits that can be delivered over the web, then it should not be denoted by a URI that is dereferencable." But according to the HTTP specification, *no resource* is a bag of bits. Or at least Web clients have *no access* to the bag of bits that might be the internal site representation of the resource. All they have access to are representations, whether the resource is a rock, or a namespace, or a document or a database record. >... > A schema is not a representation of a vocabulary. Sorry. Nope. It's > something that uses the terms of a vocabulary, but the vocabulary itself > is abstract, just as are the terms. Why not? -- Come discuss XML and REST web services at: Open Source Conference: July 22-26, 2002, conferences.oreillynet.com Extreme Markup: Aug 4-9, 2002, www.extrememarkup.com/extreme/
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 12:07:25 UTC