Lists Home |
Date Index |
It seems to not include the concept that the
authority over the resource makes the selection
among the more-or-less equivalent representations.
Exact equivalence is not a requirement and hence
the sense of ambiguity.
OTOH, if not equivalent,
doesn't the idea of state representation begin
to fall apart if time-varying properties are not
in effect, say the case where the representation
returned varies by format not to mention fragments
which are selected not by ID but by some other
selector value (e.g, set of all elements named foo or
within span X to Y)? In other words, equivalence
is in the eye of the authority not the requestor.
Still, none of that fixes the RDF problem which
as I understand it, and correct me if I am wrong,
demands a one to one mapping.
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
email@example.com (Mark Baker) cites Roy Fielding:
> "More precisely, a resource R is a temporally varying membership
> function MR(t), which for time t maps to a set of entities, or
> values, which are equivalent."
> -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2000Sep/0030
I think the "many-to-many" effectively denies (or makes deeply
contingent) the "are equivalent" at the end of that - at least that's my