W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sw-meaning@w3.org > October 2003

Re: [Fwd: consensus and ownership]

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:20:11 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031015111515.02b9fbb8@127.0.0.1>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-sw-meaning@w3.org

This idea of meaning being based in consensus also appears in the work by 
Quine that I mentioned the other week [1].

A possible difference in position would be that you talk about the meaning 
of a URI, where Quine's analysis suggest that it's not the individual terms 
but complete statements that have meaning.  (I think that's a point that 
Pat has been trying to press, too.)

#g
--

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2003Oct/0035.html


At 17:11 14/10/03 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>foo... wrong email address, and the bounce
>notice got lost in the Sobig.F bucket.
>
>--
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>
>Return-Path: <connolly@w3.org>
>Delivered-To: connolly@homer.w3.org
>Received: from dr-nick.w3.org (dr-nick.w3.org [18.29.1.73]) by homer.w3.org
>         (Postfix) with ESMTP id B855D1A8 for <connolly@homer.w3.org>; 
> Fri, 10 Oct
>         2003 13:37:42 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: by dr-nick.w3.org (Postfix) id 68EA21386A; Fri, 10 Oct 2003
>         13:35:24 -0400 (EDT)
>Delivered-To: connolly@w3.org
>Received: from dirk.dm93.org (64-126-64-19-dhcp-kc.everestkc.net
>         [64.126.64.19]) by dr-nick.w3.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 
> ED8D013833 for
>         <connolly@w3.org>; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:35:23 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: (qmail 21203 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2003 17:35:23 -0000
>Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP;
>         10 Oct 2003 17:35:23 -0000
>Subject: consensus and ownership
>From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
>To: sw-meaning@w3.org
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Organization: World Wide Web Consortium (http://www.w3.org/)
>Message-Id: <1065807322.13832.1809.camel@dirk.dm93.org>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5
>Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:35:23 -0500
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=4.5
>         tests=BAYES_10,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM,USER_AGENT_XIMIAN version=2.55
>X-Spam-Level:
>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp)
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>These discussions often refer to "the owner of the URI",
>which begs questions of whether all URIs have owners,
>how many, and such.
>
>I suggest that the case of http://www.ford.com/
>being owned by Ford Motor company is, while very
>common, not the general case. It belongs to the
>pattern where the Internet Community delegates
>(via the IANA URI scheme registry and the DNS),
>authority over a set of URIs with a common
>prefix to one particular owner.
>
>Consider news:comp.text.xml . The Web Community
>has come to agree that it refers to a "big 7" USENET
>newsgroup without delegating authority to any one
>party in paricular, but rather thru a time-honored
>process set out in
>
>  How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup
>  http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/
>
>(I tried to find a path from the URI scheme registry
>   http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes
>to that how-to document; the path goes quite happily
>thru RFC 1738 (December 1994)
>   http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/rfc/rfc1738.html
>to RFC 1036 (December 1987)
>   http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/rfc/rfc1036.html
>where we find "Newsgroups specified must all be the names of
>existing newsgroups" but the trail goes cold there.
>I think this is just failure of the RFC maintenence
>system to keep up with community practice.)
>
>Anyway... I think the general case is that a
>URI has meaning to the extent that there's consensus
>in the Internet Community about what it means, as expressed
>in Internet protocol messages, especially messages that
>express a relationship between a URI and a representation
>of what it means; and that the HTTP/DNS case is, while very
>common, a special case where the Web Community has delegated authority
>to one party (and that delegation has limits, as we
>see in the Verisign SiteFinder case).
>
>
>[I think I'll send this now rather than figuring out how it
>relates to the proceedings  of this forum or to www-tag or
>whatever.]
>
>--
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2003 06:25:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:15 GMT