On 15 June 2011 18:30, Pat Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: > Boy, that is a humdinger of a non-sequiteur. Given that HTTP has flexibility, > it is OK to identify a description of a thing with the actual thing? To me > that sounds like saying, given that movies are projected, it is OK to say > that fish are bicycles.
Not that I think I did a non-sequiteur, it is totally ok to say that fish are bicycles, if that's what you want to say. [snip] > OK, thanks. Here is your argument, as far as I can understand it. > > 1. HTTP representations may be partial or incomplete. (Agreed.) > 2. HTTP reps can have many different media types, and this is OK. (Agreed, > though I cant see what relevance this has to anything.) > 3. A description is a kind of representation. (Agreed, and there was no need > to get into the 'isomorphism' trap. We in KRep have been calling descriptions > "representations" for decades now.) > > 4. Therefore, a HTTP URI can simultaneously be understood as referring to a > document and a car. > > Whaaat? How in Gods name can you derive this conclusion from those premises? my wording could be better, but I stand by it... a document describing the car, through HTTP, can be an equally valid representation of the named car resource as the car itself (as long as it's qualified by media type) Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.name
