- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 11:24:26 -0400
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, Jonathan Rees <rees@mumble.net>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 3/30/2012 9:18 PM, David Booth wrote: > In other words, a resource-vs-description distinction will matter to > some applications and not others, Right, but part of the power of the Web is that resources initially deployed for some particular purpose may later be useful in other ways. The closer you come to following good architectural practice from the start, the better the chances that these opportunities will be there for you later. On the other hand, I don't think there's any problem with >indirect< identification. Saying "get me the description of the resource, where the resource in question is identified by URI_A" is not the same thing as identifying both resource and description with the same URI. It's clear in this example that URI_A identifies the resource, not the description. Indeed, it's possible that the description returned will self-identify (using whatever means) as having URI_D_OF_A. When you don't care to have two URIs, I think that's usually a better approach than just fudging the distinction between resource and description of resource. Noah
Received on Saturday, 31 March 2012 15:24:51 UTC