RE: [xml-dev] Re: Why REST was Re: [xml-dev] URIs are simply names

["Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>]

List members may be interested in Sandro Hawke's site that surveys the
different opinions, listing pros and cons of various identification
techniques:

http://www.w3.org/2001/03/identification-problem/


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 6:40 PM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Re: Why REST was Re: [xml-dev] URIs are simply
> names
> 
> On Sat, 2002-02-16 at 20:46, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> > The core issue is whether we are able to describe anything but
> "documents"
> > on the Web. One might take the position that nothing but documents
> exists on
> > the Web. But it is the literal incantation of a document which is
> defined as
> > the _entity_ (the series of bits)
> 
> I don't think the incantation of bits is sufficient cause to believe
> that an abstraction called a resource lurks behind the bits.  Nor do I
> find that abstraction particularly helpful when it interferes (as it
> regularly does) with expectations about said bits.
> 
> > As I see it, every document is _about_ something. It is that
something
> which
> > is the _resource_.
> 
> So resources are kind of like Hegel's Spirit?  Maybe Frank Willison
was
> dangerously right at the end of:
> http://xml.oreilly.com/news/xmldevcon_0201.html
> 
> Or is that more like Plato's Forms?  I'd really like something more
> tangible than merely "a resource is the object of an identifier,"
which
> is as far as URI folks ever seem to get.  Perhaps uselessness is
> beautiful?
> 
> > Needless layers of abstraction are just a waste of time. On the
other
> hand
> > it is essential to distinguish between a description of something
and
> the
> > thing that is described. For example: XML Namespaces. The RDDL
document
> > isn't the namespace, it describes the namespace. Or your homepage,
it
> may
> > describe you  --if you say so-- but it isn't you --no matter what
you
> say--.
> 
> I don't claim my homepage is myself.  I do, however, claim that
> http://simonstl.com/articles/index.html has meaning well beyond
> identification, and the reason that odd string of characters works has
> infinitely more to do with its role as a locator than as an
identifier.
> 
> The reason RDDL works is that people and machines understand URLs, and
> can get to the bits.  The URI part is, as I said before, hocus-pocus.
> I'll take incantations of bits over incantations abstractly
identifying
> abstract resources.
> 
> The other problem, of course, is that isn't clear how these
abstractions
> add up.  How do I describe http://simonstl.com/ns/fragments/ when it's
> both a document and a namespace?  I've chosen to take advantage of the
> URL-nature of the namespace to put a RDDL document there, but that was
> just me being nice, and now I want to identify the page separately
from
> the namespace in some kind of processing.  # doesn't seem to answer
> this.
> 
> Identification is a tough problem, and useful in some but not all
> contexts.  I find it hard to believe that anyone but architects wants
to
> see architecture built on identification rather than something
slightly
> more tangible - say, location, even an abstract location in a
computer.
> That's served the Web quite well for a decade.
> 
> --
> Simon St.Laurent
> Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
> Errors, errors, all fall down!
> http://simonstl.com
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>