[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: many-to-many

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: many-to-many
• From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
• Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:38:55 +0000
• In-reply-to: <20030126115417.B2173@w...>
• References: <r01050400-1023-B3ACAA1130AA11D78F1A0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]> <200301261324.54123.miles@m...> <20030126115417.B2173@w...>

Mark Baker wrote,
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 01:26:30PM +0000, Miles Sabin wrote:
> > Of course, a variation implies a variation on _something_. But it
> > doesn't follow that that something is an abstract resource in the
> > REST sense.
>
> Yes, it does follow.  That's exactly my point.  If it's *something*
> then it's a resource.

So, according to you "resource" is just another way of saying "thing"?

Strange ... I don't think that's quite Roy's position. In fact I'm sure 
I recall him arguing quite vigorously against exactly that line.

Whatever, you're welcome to Resource and Representation, and as far as 
I'm concerned you're free to use them anyway you see fit. I'm even 
happy for you to try to view whatever I say through REST-tinted 
spectacles. As I said in an earlier response to Tim, one of the nice 
things about the "REST is just one view among many" attitude is that it 
just doesn't matter any more. You do your thing and I'll do mine.

Cheers,


Miles

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: many-to-many
    • From: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>

• References:
  • Re: many-to-many
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: many-to-many
    • From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
  • Re: many-to-many
    • From: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Is Resource/Representation a fruitful abstraction? (was Re: many-to-many)
• Next by Date: Re: many-to-many
• Previous by thread: Re: many-to-many
• Next by thread: Re: many-to-many
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread