And it
has been discussed here.
The
resolution is systemic: it defines the term under discussion
in functions of the system of use. "Identity"
is
semantically defined in terms of types of message response.
So it
also determines what the system 'contains' and what it can only identify by
indirection. Michael
Kay
(the fellow who responds to the thread) is not 'on the web' but things to which
he might attend
can be
identified as resources. He, himself in all his natures and
entreaties, can not.
len
This sort of thing was a
W3C TAG issue (httpRange-14), which was resolved:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039.html
<TAG type="RESOLVED">
That we provide advice to the community that they may mint
"http" URIs for any resource provided that they follow this
simple rule for the sake of removing ambiguity:
a) If an "http" resource responds to a GET request
with a
2xx response, then the resource identified
by that URI
is an information resource;
b) If an "http" resource responds to a GET request
with a
303 (See Other) response, then the
resource identified
by that URI could be any resource;
c) If an "http" resource responds to a GET request
with a
4xx (error) response, then the nature of
the resource
is unknown.
</TAG>
Paul
At 02:31 PM 2005-12-10, Michael Kay wrote:
> Many of the resources in my
work are non-electronic, e.g. persons,
> organisations,
equipment. The resources got URIs. The resources (or,
> if you
like: the representations of them) are accessible in a
>
RESTafarian way.
Well, I'm a person, and I don't have a URI, and I'm
not accessible on the
web. The internet will get you only as far as my
inbox, and my inbox is not
a representation of me.
Michael
Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
|
Cart
