[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
JeffreyWinter@crd.com (Jeffrey Winter) writes:
>How is this any different than the already well established
>understanding that a URI references a single resource
>that may have multiple representations?
I think it goes deeper than that existing distinction.
>I think the
>relationship is better stated as there being a many-to-one
>relationship between URI and Resource, and a one-to-many
>relationship between Resource and Representation.
That's a good way of expressing the current orthodoxy. What I like
about Bill's point is that it seems to me to go beyond that. (I also
like that he talks about things rather than Resources per se, but that's
another matter.)
>Effectively there is a many-to-many between URI and
>Representation, but that's a much different thing
>than saying theres a many-to-many between URI and
>Resource.
It's definitely different. While I probably need more time to digest
all this, I think the many-to-many between URI and Resource is more
probable, however frustrating it may be for those of us who would like
to have our computers living in a deterministic universe.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
