RE: Information resources?

-----Original Message-----
From:	ext Norman Walsh [mailto:Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM]
Sent:	Thu 2004-09-09 22:48
To:	Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere)
Cc:	tbray@textuality.com
Subject:	Re: Information resources?


/ Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com was heard to say:
[...]
|> Web accessible resource would work for me, though I think we'd then
|> get to argue about what web accessible means.
|
| It simply means that you can successfully dereference the URI (presuming
| that temporary, system related access problems are disregarded). If a
| URI usually sucessfully resolves to a representation, then it denotes
| a "web accessible resource" or a "web resource". What those representations
| are comprised of or good for is beside the point.

>Yeah, but then we have to argue about whether or not physical objects
>can be web accessible.

I don't see why.

*No* resource is directly, actually "accessible" via the web. All
that one can "touch" are the representations. Any affect that any
representations have (e.g. results of PUT, etc.) on a resource are
outside the scope of the web architecture proper.

For a resource to be "web accessible", it simply has to have
representations associated with it which are obtainable by
dreferencing the URI denoting the resource.

I don't see where any argument would arise by saying that a dog
is a "web resource" because when you dereference the URI denoting
that dog, you get a representation. That's *precisely* how I (and
it seems alot of other folks) use the web.

Where's the problem?

Cheers,

Patrick

Received on Friday, 10 September 2004 05:35:06 UTC