- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:46:12 -0500
- To: "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: "'www-tag@w3.org'" <www-tag@w3.org>
It means something the web system can identify and retrieve using its own well-defined means. A lot of bits have been wasted unless the meaning of 'something' is clear. Given REST, it is the representation of a resource, and I'll leave that as stated without dropping into the rat holes of abstraction and existence. Unless the web is understood to be a system, an architecture makes very little sense or difference. It shouldn't be that hard to state that a representation of a resource is 'on the web' if the web's means of identification and retrieval can be used and it can be observed that they successfully do retrieve the representation. The property 'on the web' can only be proved by testing. It can be defined in terms of the test. len From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] 1. We regularly use the phrase "on the web" in our document. It should be defined to be more complete. 2. We have lots of other things in our document that we should cut if we want to apply just that metric. 3. Common sense to me says that Web Arch v1.0 should define what on the web means. 4. Other groups within the W3C, at least ws-arch and xmlp, use this phrase. It would be good to have a normative definition so that I don't have to yet again say what I think it means. Part of the reason for doing web arch is so that we have consensus on what things mean, rather than single opinions without any consensus opinion. 5. I don't think this is huge scope creep that will cause us to slip our schedule.
Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 12:46:18 UTC