RE: Resource definition

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Mealling [mailto:michael@verisignlabs.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 3:29 PM
> To: Assaf Arkin
> Cc: James M Snell; Mark Baker; David Orchard; 'Cutler, Roger
> ""(RogerCutler)'; www-ws-arch@w3.org; www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Resource definition
>
>
> On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 18:02, Assaf Arkin wrote:
> > Is the 'means to access a resource' a resource in itself?
> >
> > I think it's a matter of scope. When I manage a Web site I consider each
> > network card to be a resource, each HTTP server to be a
> resource, and each
> > HTML document to be a resource. When I look at services I take
> network cards
> > and HTTP servers for granted, but I still think of services as
> resources.
> > When I look at data I ignore the service.
>
> Its incorrect to assert that how you use the term 'resource' is the same
> a) the same as everyone elses and b) has anything at all to do with the
> definition of the (capital R) Resource as defined in RFC 2396. RFC 2396
> defines the term Resource completely. The only thing that word and the
> one found in the english dictinoary have in common is the letters used
> to compose them.....

I don't see the mismatch. The dictionary gives a very broad definition of a
resource. RFC 2396 simply defines a resource in the context of a "compact
string of characters for identifying an abstract or physical resource" and
in more elaborate terms (dictionaries like to be concise and cryptic). RFC
2396 does not define the term 'resource' more than it defines the term
'uniform'.

arkin

>
> Maybe we should have just made up a new nonsense word for 2396....
>
> -MM

Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2003 18:46:33 UTC