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

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

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 10:08:22 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20041002095546.02161448@127.0.0.1>
To: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

There's a paper [1] (in the 2nd iTrust conference on trust management [2]) 
that probes some of the accepted legal ideas that are associated with an 
"ownable" resource.  That, and the subsequent analysis (of value transfers 
in virtual organizations) shows the notions associated with ownership to be 
rather more than single-dimensional.   The paper examines the relationship 
between these concepts in the context of video/DVD rental.

Some key ideas are:  ownership, possession, usufruct, licence.

#g
--

[1] "Modeling Controls for Dynamic Value Exchanges in Virtual 
Organizations", Yao-Hua Tan, Walter Thoen and Jaap Gordijn.  In: Lecture 
Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag Heidelberg, ISSN: 0302-9743, 
Volume 2995, 2004.
http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=h0gntlqxlk5e7a768x2m&referrer=parent&backto=issue,18,30;journal,172,1703;linkingpublicationresults,1:105633,1
(Unfortunately, full text is online only for a fee.)

[2] http://www.trustmanagement.cclrc.ac.uk/

At 10:27 01/10/04 -0700, Joshua Allen wrote:

> > 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.

------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Saturday, 2 October 2004 09:07:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:01 UTC