[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
The way to challenge the assumption of resource-orientation
is to remove the term "resource" from 2396 and deal with
a UnI as a syntax-only string without reference to the
means or model by which it is bound as a name to any
document or service by which one retrieves document.
Would it be equally successful? If so, the resource
model, per se, is one of many possible some equally
effective models.
Resource creates the illusion that there is a one
to one relationship between a bound name and the
thing so identified. It is a convenient illusion
when the implementor makes the right substitutions.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@prescod.net]
Mike Champion wrote:
> ... Clearly one *can* use the discipline of "Resource
> Oriented Programming" (I believe the phrase is Paul Prescod's) to do
> interesting things, as Tim has done. My skepticism kicks in when one
> asserts that this is *the* architecture of the Web rather than *an*
> architecture within which one can do useful things with the Web.
If we can't agree that pervasive use of URIs is a defining
characteristic of the Web as we know it, then I really can't imagine how
we have the building blocks for any meaningful conversation at all!
|
