Le 2 août 2009 à 15:48, Tim Berners-Lee a écrit : > On 2009-08 -02, at 07:04, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >> If you were to go in that direction, I think you ought to consider >> adding "Service" as a third category. Thing at the top, with the >> children document and service disjoint (not a complete partition, >> obviously). […] > Yes, I agree adding Service would help relieve some confusion. I > deliberately avoided it in the short history. There is a use in some > ways for an ontology which ignores POST services completely, as many > systems are just buil;t by making webs. This gives me the feeling of the tree hidding the forest. HTTP gives a very simple set of words (GET, PUT, POST, DELETE, …) to deal with an information space. These words are being abused in many ways. (Julia Kristeva, poetic language and intertextuality?) Basically we are adding a layer of meaning by fragmenting a generic meaning: From "Resource" to "Document, Thing and Service". It seems like going from abstract to more defined material things. This might help momentarily but will just push the limit to the next iteration of "abuse", the next layer of fragmentation. -- Karl Dubost Montréal, QC, Canada http://twitter.com/karlproReceived on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 01:51:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:30 UTC