W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: Use of "assign" for URI -> resource

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:48:53 +0100
Message-Id: <F73E6192-083A-11D9-9E53-000D9338C596@w3.org>
Cc: "'Stuart Williams'" <skw@hp.com>, public-webarch-comments@w3.org
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>

On Sep 16, 2004, at 11:03 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> I would be happy to dispense entirely with the notion of
> "ownership", since I think it makes the web architecture
> messy and adds an unnecessary complexity. I'd be happier
> to talk about "capabilities" rather than "ownership", and
> then, just for resources. There are some individuals, groups,
> or technical (why 'social'?) entities that have the capability
> to modify resources, and change the behavior seen when
> resources are contacted or asked for representation.

At first I didn't like this suggestion; the motivation for "social
entity" has been clear to me: to relate web publishing to
traditional publishing, w.r.t. liabilities and such. But then reading 

> what actually happens here doesn't have much to do with "ownership
> rights" and more to do with "capability to modify resources identified
> by one or more URIs"

Now I begin to see the appeal. I can imagine that might make
things more simple and direct. I'm mulling it over.

Received on Thursday, 16 September 2004 23:48:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:47 UTC