RE: A little courtesy, please

Dan Connolly wrote,
> Oops... I neglected to clarify that I was not expressing 
> opinion when I said "Resources [...] _are_ abstract 
> things...". I was paraphrasing the relevant IETF Draft 
> Standard:
>
>  "Resource
>    A resource can be anything that has identity.
<snip/>
>
>    Not all resources are network "retrievable"; e.g., 
>    human beings, corporations, and bound books in a 
>    library can also be considered resources.
>
>    The resource is the conceptual mapping to an entity
>    or set of entities, not necessarily the entity which 
>    corresponds to that mapping at any particular 
>    instance in time.
<snip/>
> Omitting references always costs...

As does misinterpreting them, or attempting to take them
seriously when they're nonsense.

The two sentences I've highlighted make it quite clear (as John 
Cowan reminded me) that RFC 2396 allows that things like human 
beings, corporations and books can be resources. Note can *be* 
resources, not merely be represented by resources.

It then goes on to say that resources are 'conceptual 
mappings', and I take it that you're reading this as saying 
that they're abstract (a word which doesn't appear anywhere in 
the passage you quoted BTW).

Unless I'm very much mistaken it follows that according to
RFC 2396 a human being, corporation or book is somehow or other 
a conceptual mapping (or, if you prefer, abstract).

Forgive me but, this is,

1. extremely silly.

2. a metaphysical ruling which is beyond both the IETFs
   charter and sphere of competence to make.

Cheers,


Miles

-- 
Miles Sabin                       Cromwell Media
Internet Systems Architect        5/6 Glenthorne Mews
+44 (0)20 8817 4030               London, W6 0LJ, England
msabin@cromwellmedia.com          http://www.cromwellmedia.com/

Received on Thursday, 25 May 2000 06:13:44 UTC