RE: A little courtesy, please

John Cowan wrote,
> > You're missing a (subtle I grant you) contrast. A resource
> > is _made_of_bits_, an entity body _is_ bits.
> I disagree.  Some resources simply have no bits: a certain 
> brick in the foundation of my apartment building, e.g.  Yet I 
> could devise a URI scheme for designating it:
>  brick://us/ny/nyc/13%20%E.%203rd%20St.?side=east&course=11&seq=25

Point taken.

I was equating 'resource' with 'electronically retrievable
resource'. The latter are made of bits (or generated by 
non-abstract bit-generating processes). In any case your example 
hardly bolsters the claim that resources are abstract ... 
bricks are about as non-abstract as you can get.

> > > A resource *is* abstract; the same resource can get a
> > > different entity body every time you access it, e.g.
> > > gopher://
> > 
> > I'm afraid I think this is just wrong. Dereferencing that 
> > URL gets me a different entity body every time, but it's 
> > far from clear that it gets me a different resource.
> What I said: the same resource (viz. ccil's idea of the local 
> time), different entity bodies (at present, the octets 54 75 
> 65 20 4D 61 79 20 32 33 20 31 33 3A 31 34 3A 31 32 20 32 30 
> 30 30 0d 0a with media-type "text/plain").

Sorry, I misread.

But, please, explain why you think the fact that a resource is 
made of different bits at different times (or, if you prefer, 
different entity bodies at different times) implies that 
resources are _abstract_? Lots of perfectly respectable things 
manage to have different constituents at different times yet 
manage to be non-abstract ... bricks for example.



Miles Sabin                       Cromwell Media
Internet Systems Architect        5/6 Glenthorne Mews
+44 (0)20 8817 4030               London, W6 0LJ, England

Received on Tuesday, 23 May 2000 13:20:42 UTC