Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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. len -----Original Message----- From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] distobj@a... (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 reading.
|
