I could do that. What I am wondering is if it is not better to decouple the
concepts so it does not feel RPCish and also makes it declarative what is
going on in the class. If you use `represents` it is explicit. So, I am a
little torn. Thoughts?

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Matthew Szenher
<notifications@github.com>wrote:

> In README.md:
>
> > @@ -3,6 +3,55 @@
> >  Crichton is a library to simplify generating and consuming Hypermedia API responses. It has the knowledge of Hypermedia
> >  from the Ancients.
> >
> > +## Usage
> > +Any class can be used to represent a resource by simply including the Crichton::Representor module and specifying the
> > +resource it represents defined in an associated _Resource Descriptor_ document:
> > +
> > +```ruby
> > +class DRD
> > +  include Crichton::Representor
> > +
> > +  represents :drd
>
> Can you default the name of the resource to represent from the name of the
> enclosing class?
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/mdsol/crichton/pull/16/files#r4199491>
> .
>