- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:45:16 -0700
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
On Oct 15, 2004, at 8:10 PM, Mark Baker wrote: > On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 02:27:35AM -0400, Harry Halpin wrote: >> If you have my medical record and take it from a piece of >> paper and put in into some database, then general an XML file from >> that >> database that flies across the Web, that XML file is *my medical >> record* >> in the same sense that the original paper version is and not *a >> representation of my medical record*. In fact, the word >> *representation >> of my medical record* doesn't even make much sense, does it? > > I believe it does. If you subsequently (to the above taking place) > paid > a visit to your doctor and she wrote a note in your record, the XML > document wouldn't be updated. This is because the data crossed a trust > boundary when it was translated into XML, just as it would if you made > a > photocopy of it. Therefore it's not your medical record, but just a > representation of it at some point in time. I was just about to give the same example. Temporal issues are at the heart of most misunderstandings about resources, in spite of the fact that the reason they are called resources is because of an expectation of *future* use. > ... > I continue to maintain that "information resource" is a pointless > concept. So do I, but I removed my objection to including it in webarch on condition that the reason for the definition also be provided, so that folks who don't care for the reason won't have to worry about it. Cheers, Roy T. Fielding <http://roy.gbiv.com/> Chief Scientist, Day Software <http://www.day.com/>
Received on Saturday, 16 October 2004 03:45:50 UTC