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

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

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:43:55 -0400
Message-Id: <BB6906AF-1186-11D9-AF97-000A95718F82@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Hi DanC,

Le 13 sept. 2004, à 18:30, Dan Connolly a écrit :
> Technical Architecture Group 13 Sep 2004

"""
-- KD 005 URI Ownership
DanC: the gandi.net  contract has me owning dm93.org, not renting
SKW: I made a  comment that might be relevant to KD 005
"""

Could you explain how do you own something you have to pay on a 
permanent basis? This is not only a technical issue here, but a 
philosophical/social one, with many implications.

1. domain name = object
You buy an object, find an object, you are the owner of this object.
You own it until you give it, sell it on your own will.

=> it's not the case of domain name right now.

2. domain name = community resource temporary owned.
The community gives you the right to use a specific resource for a 
defined time by the community. You are responsible of this specific 
resource with regards to the community and by the terms edicted by the 
community.

=> it's not that case. First there's no contract from ICANN which says 
that once the domain name has been created, the owner has to keep it 
and for example to maintain all URIs which have been created under this 
domain name. There's no definition as well of what will become the 
domain name once you don't have the time, the money, the possibility to 
maintain it.

3. domain name = shared community resource
The community has a set of resources but none is specifically owned by 
someone in particular (like a natural park, a forest) Though the 
community has the duty to preserve it and maintain it. I can rent the 
resource to someone if needed but the community owned the resource and 
defines the terms of the maintenance.

=> Not the case again. I can't use your domain name, I can't walk in 
your space and create URIs and I'm not sure that it will be preserved.

4. domain name = .... domain name (and that's bad)
Right now, I go to a service where I buy a service, the right to use a 
name to identify resources for a specific and limited time.

So now, imagine the Web is a dictionary with radicals (domain names) I 
have bought the right to use the name "love" for 2 years. I have 
created many names with it (URI, resources). all of them have specific 
definitions (meaning)

love
lover
lovely
to love
lovable

My two years contract comes to its end. I do not renew the contract for 
a good or bad reason. Someone is buying love because it's now a well 
known name and many people are using it. But this person decides to 
change every single meaning that the previous "owner", I would say 
instead "right holder".

	Everything is falling appart, the language doesn't exist anymore, the 
community lost the meaning of things, and the evolution of man stops. 
:)

My point is that the Web Architecture relies on a concept which is not 
true and that  is verified every day on the Web.

There are around 7800 pages on my personal Web site right now, I don't 
know how many links to external resources, but I could evaluate that. 
I'm pretty sure that if I do a checklink on links which have been 
created more than two years ago, I will find out that many of them are 
broken now.

Cool URIs should not break, that's the theory, and I deeply sympathize 
to it.
Though domain names are the Achilles' heel of the Web. At least if they 
were free.

Don't misunderstand me. I wish things like URI ownership exists, but 
it's not true in the framework of today's web. It's a false assertion. 
Or you have to define what "URI Ownership" precisely means.


-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2004 21:45:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:28 GMT