RE: New AFTF draft.

There is no fixed or named mention of a server in the relationship
between a URI and a resource, for example as illustrated in [1]. REST
introduces a set of constraints that provides an architectural style for
accessing resources but you will note that not even HTTP [2] supports
the notion that a resource is *defined* by an origin server. An origin
server merely provides a means for accessing the resource, from [2],
section 1.3:

      A network data object or service that can be identified by a URI,
      as defined in section 3.2. Resources may be available in multiple
      representations (e.g. multiple languages, data formats, size, and
      resolutions) or vary in other ways.

   origin server
      The server on which a given resource resides or is to be created.



>Where do you figure there is no mention of a server?  The REST 
>architecture, particularly section 5 of Dr. Fielding's thesis, 
>explicitly talks about connectors and components, including 
>caches/proxies/origin servers.  A cache is only a cache of 
>something from an origin server in the web architecture.
>Another way of expressing this, is that just because there is 
>another URI (the mid: or somesuch for attachments) for a 
>representation, does not mean that the bytes in-flight 
>suddenly became resources after being retrieved as 
>representations.  From my POV, and I guess henrik disagrees, 
>is that Resources are defined by origin servers and not 
>intermediary formats/representations.

Received on Thursday, 12 September 2002 09:43:00 UTC