W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2004

RE: URI Renting Re: minutes: TAG teleconference 2004-09-13 for re view

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:42:38 -0500
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE072067A5@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: 'Joshua Allen' <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>

Ownership should be defined in terms of the operations 
that can be performed without objection, not in terms 
of the lifecycle of the owner.  A URI might outlive all 
of us.  It might not outlive the daily news.  Ownership 
like all other terms in our weak ontology of architectural 
definitions should be defined in terms of testable properties.

So, if one is 'said' to 'own' a URI, what can one do with 
it that one cannot do if one does not 'own' it or 'rent' it 
without another entity rightfully objecting?

len


From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
Joshua Allen

> If I had time I would do a deeper research... but basically the 
> analogy you are giving is not about "land" but about economic 
> and social system. We still do not discuss the same thing.
> If I have time this week-end, I will do a research about it.

The mistake you are making here is in setting up a strawman definition
of absolute "ownership" which does not even exist in the real world.  By
defining ownership to mean only those physical properties which can
never be taken away from you, you define it to mean nothing.  In
reality, the concept of "ownership" is *always* subordinate to the
context of an economic and social system, and is *never* absolute.

Even in the most primitive societies, you "own" property only to the
extent to which you are willing to pay the ongoing price of maintaining,
protecting, and defending it.  Societies enforce laws to protect private
property, but this protection is *never* absolute.  All societies have
provisions to take away that private property when it is deemed to be
for the good of the larger society, and you "own" your private property
only so long as you pay your ongoing rent of obligation to the society.

Ownership and renting are definitely different, and the difference is
not all that subtle.  But on the other hand, the difference is not the
difference of absolutes that you seem to be arguing.
Received on Friday, 1 October 2004 17:43:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:43 UTC