- From: Miles Sabin <msabin@cromwellmedia.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 10:08:28 +0100
- To: xml-uri@w3.org
John Cowan wrote, > Miles Sabin wrote: > > But why should the URI-to-resouce binding be any more > > constant than the resource-to-entity body relationship? > > What is the reason for flexibility? I'm not entirely sure I understand the question. The entity/ resource distinction is sort of useful because it allows for the very same resource to persist across changes of its constituent bits. But those very same bits can simultaneously constitute lots of different resources (a transient page of HTML; a persistent but changing page of HTML; todays weather report, whatever), so at the very least a URI can be ambiguous and shift it's reference between those resources depending on the context. But then the entity/resouce distinction is also misleading, because it suggests that we've just got two layers: a changing bit layer, and a static resource layer. That just doesn't strike me as particularly plausible. In much the same way as a changing bunch of bits can constitute an HTML page, a changing HTML page can constitute todays weather report. I'm happy(ish) to retain the term 'entity' to pick out the bottom of the stack, but I can't see any particular reason why the stack shouldn't go on up indefinitely. 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 Friday, 8 September 2000 05:10:03 UTC