RE: yet another sidetrack on what a URI identifies

You people are talking past each other. I agree with Sandro but believe
this discussion became a religous one sometime ago which seems destined
to be at an impasse for some time. Also I also have no idea what HTTP
GET has to do with knowledge representation or RDF. 

If you see an assertion about "", whether you
consider it an assertion about me personally or the web page (i.e. the
representation) seems completely orthogonal to what HTTP GET can or
cannot retrieve. 

Some enlightenment would be appreciated. 

The ideal vacation cottage is one that visits twelve but sleeps two.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua Allen [] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 5:37 PM
> To: Roy T. Fielding; Sandro Hawke
> Cc:
> > > Unfortunately, your model doesn't work for me, in trying to to 
> > > effectively use URIs in knowledge representation languages (like
> RDF).
> > 
> > Why?  Every statement to that effect has so far been disproven, not
> Really?
> > that breaks in the REST model?
> First, I thought we have established long ago that such 
> things are insignificant to REST.  REST only needs to be able 
> to identify representation dispensers, and *sometimes* a 
> particular representation (etag).  That is just fine for 
> HTTP, but HTTP has practically nothing to do with KR, and 
> such laissez-faire identification is not suitable for KR.
> > for the metadata that is included in HTTP responses so that 
> the client 
> > has an interoperable clue as to what you are talking about.
> What does that have to do with KR or RDF?
> > semantics of a Web to GSM SMS gateway using POST.  I 
> already did that 
> > stuff seven years ago, so I expect a little more than talk at this
> And you did a great job.  But I wonder what that has to do with KR?

Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 20:53:43 UTC