• From: "Andrzej Jan Taramina" <andrzej@c...>
• To: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:13:14 -0500

MIchael:

> It's pretty clear to me that the people who chose the words "object" and
> "resource" were both trying to make the concepts as general as they could
> possibly make them, and therefore by intent they are equivalent. If there is a
> difference, then I don't think it's one that the originators of the terms
> intended.

Obviously the case here.

GIven that most of us sling code and thus are quite familiar with the need 
for specificity, both at syntactic and semantic levels, it is rather 
dismaying to see how prevalent "loose language", overloaded/opaque personal 
definitions and vague conceptual idioms are when discussing topics like 
Objects at REST.

It's no wonder that the software world is in such a mess, and that the 
business folks, for the most part, ignore us. 

This has been a good thread, with some interesting insights from many 
quarters.  Time to give it a REST, at least from my end. ;-)

Andrzej Jan Taramina
Chaeron Corporation: Enterprise System Solutions
http://www.chaeron.com

• References:
  • Objects at REST...
    • From: "Andrzej Jan Taramina" <andrzej@c...>
  • Re: [rest-discuss] Objects at REST...
    • From: "Alexander Johannesen" <alexander.johannesen@g...>
  • RE: Re: [rest-discuss] Objects at REST...
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>