Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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@p...] 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!
|
