Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > Anyone understand freenet? > > As far as I understand freenet URIs have an owner, who often wishes to > remain anonymous. (Hence the use of freenet). > > Thus, putting too much weight on URIs having an authoritative owner may put > RDF on the side of centralist big corporate against the more anarchic p2p > freedom loving hackers. I don't understand this. In the previous paragraph, you said freenet URIs have an owner. So why is putting weight on URIs having an authoritative owner a problem? You may not (e.g., in the case of freenet) know who the owner is, but is *that* a problem? Is the problem to do with being simultaneously "authoritative" and anonymous (and if so could you explain further)? > > As far as I can see, freenet URIs could be made to work within the framework > of authoritative statements, since essentially a freenet URI is a URL and so > the authoritative statement of what a freenet URI means is the content that > can be retrieved from that URL, if any. > > Jeremy -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-8752Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 11:46:30 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:08 EDT