On 16 June 2011 22:39, Pat Hayes <pha...@ihmc.us> wrote: > Not only do I not follow your reasoning, I don't even know what it is you are > saying. The document is a valid *representation* of the car, yes of course.
That's all that's necessary to square this circle. > But as valid as the car itself? So you think a car is a representation of > itself? Or are you drawing a contrast between the 'named car resource' and > the car itself? ??? All HTTP delivers is representations of named resources. (I very much do think a car is a representation of itself in HTTP terms, in the same way a document is, but it isn't necessary here). > Maybe it would be best if we just dropped this now. I gather that you were > offering me a way to make semantic sense of something, but Im not getting any > sense at all out of this discussion, I am afraid. I'll be delighted to drop it, I thought we were getting stuck in a tar pit but your statement above is the er, oil, that gets us out. Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.name
