> > > Is this still the current thinking? If so, what's wrong with Resource
> > > Maps being accepted as representations of the Aggregation?

> > Well, this is a difference between English and the Architecture of the
> > World Wide Web [AWWW] document.

> I think I see the source of my confusion now. This isn't the
> difference between English and AWWW et al. It's the difference between
> HTTP and those other things. From an HTTP perspective, a Resource Map
> would make for a perfectly reasonable representation. If the documents
> that have been cited so far explain this somewhere I might accept it,
> although it is damned confusing of them to redefine words like
> "representation" that way.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 07:28:10PM -0700, Jeff Young wrote:
> Sorry. Let me admit that this sentence from my last message doesn't
> add up:

> > From an HTTP perspective, a Resource Map
> > would make for a perfectly reasonable representation.

> I understand that a Resource Map is not a representation, it is a
> resource that has representations. I still suspect there is a point to
> what I was saying, but I'm afraid that this sentence might permanently
> undermine it. If I'm lucky, I'll go insane before I have time to
> reword it. ;-)