RE: freenet URIs and URI ownership

Frank asked me to explain what the problem was better ...

DanC's news URI is perhaps a better ownerless example.

With the freenet ones it's perhaps a wording problem:

>
> [[
> The social conventions surrounding use of RDF include the idea
> that each URI
> 'belongs to' somebody who has authority and responsibility for
> defining its
> meaning.

Perhaps changing this wording to explicitly talk about URLs allows the owner
to retain anonymity ... As is, this wording permits the Mr Example to
publish a press release (not on the web) to announce the meaning of
http://www.example.com/ .

Hmmm ... maybe I am reading this too closely.

Jeremy