Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Agreed. If the network definitions are semantically simple, the communications load is in the resource definitions and negotiations of the meaning of signs (from a semiotic perspective). I think it comes down to explaining that network definitions (verbs for schlepping stuff) are never *meaningful*. It's like asking your mailman to do your taxes instead of moving the form to the IRS and bringing the payment back. (We may have some fun later merging this thread into Pragmatics (not what Box is talking about but the subfield of linguistics)). Why Federated instead of Confederated? In other words, if REST is Federated naming, you are saying it is centrally administered. I'd say it is Confederated because the meaningful names are in the packages, not the types of the envelopes. len From: Richard Salz [mailto:rsalz@u...] > But I think the hardest thing to understand about REST isn't the > semantics of the operations per se, but how exactly to define what the > resource is so that the operations make sense. Yes, naming in distributed systems has long been recognized as a a very important, subtle, and hard problem. I used to say REST is just federated naming, but nobody understood me.
|
