Subject: RE: Qualities of URLs and resources

From: "Slein, Judith A" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:36:29 -0500

Roy,

In response to your comments about the nature of resources, we plan to
remove from the binding spec all language that suggests that resources are
storage entities.  We think that otherwise, the spec is consistent with the
view that a resource is a mapping function.

We will change the definition of binding to state explicitly that it is not
a resource, but is rather part of the state of a collection resource.
Although I think this conflicts with your position, it at least makes our
position clearer.

Will these changes allay your concerns, or do we need to do further work?

--Judy

---

From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:51:02 -0800

>Although I think this conflicts with your position, it at least makes our

Almost.  Anything that is identifiable by a URI is a resource, which
pretty much covers everything that can be identified as a concept.
So, you are better off not explicitly saying that a binding is not
a resource.  What you want to say is simply that the target of the
bind requests is the collection resource, and the bindings are considered
to be part of the state of that collection for the purposes of those
requests.  Whether or not those bindings identify a resource, or are
resources in themselves, is not relevent during the scope of the
client/server conversation.

....Roy