RE: freenet URIs and URI ownership

At 08:15 PM 11/21/02 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:


>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.

Maybe so... the existence of that someone doesn't mean you can find out who 
they are.  More important, I think, is that you can find out what they say 
about the URI concerned.

Of course there are then issues of authenticity, etc., but I think that's 
way out of scope.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>