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

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

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:31:16 -0400
Message-Id: <4BFEFD7D-1317-11D9-AF97-000A95718F82@w3.org>
To: www-tag@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>

Le 30 sept. 2004, à 08:44, Tim Berners-Lee a écrit :
>> I still disagree you don't own your domain name. You own your land. 
>> There's a fixed price to it. When you inherit it you don't pay for 
>> it, etc.
>
> Interesting analogy. *Actually*, with land:

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.

> - You pay a price when you inherit it. (estate tax)

In which countries, this is true,
In which countries, this is not true.
This is not about the land, but about the value of the land. This is 
done because of the organization of a social system, which says that 
when you are rich and so supposed to have a lot of lands, It's a way to 
reverse to the *community* the value of your possession. This money for 
example in some cases will help some people to live in government 
financed building.
	I would accept your comment if you were saying that the money paid for 
domain name would be reversed to help other people who can't buy their 
domain name.


> - You pay a fee every year. (real estate tax)

same questions. This is not about the land, but about the value of the 
land you possess and so the evaluation of richness. Poor (at least in 
France) will not pay this tax. Same question about reversing money to 
the community.

> - If you default on those payments, the town repossesses the land in 
> order to pay the back taxes.

Wrong. The town don't repossesses the land. The town tries to find all 
possible values you possess to be paid. In fact it's quite ironic 
because it shows my point. The land is an object that you own, that you 
can sell, etc. The town in this precise case "don't get back the land", 
but get the land to have its value. It's completely different.
	And this case will happen only if your two first cases exist, which 
are not universal.

> So "ownership" in the sense of land is not incompatible with having to 
> pay some authority for the upkeep of the infrastructure.

	;) I should have chosen an object analogy like a "book", but I fear 
people will find another way of turning around. If I buy a book, I own 
it for all my life. Yeah there's still the problem if I don't pay my 
taxes, people will take away all my belongings, etc. But do you see the 
difference?

> The actual payment situation is similar to the relationship between 
> dan and gandi, which is normally called rental.  The term "owner" 
> gives more emphasis to the rights of the owner.

	Rights comes with duties.
	Web Arch talks more about duties.
	I could soften my opposition only with a term like "temporary 
ownership" which is exactly the case.

And therefore the following concept of:

	Domain-name-dependent-URIs are "temporary identifiers".

which leads to a load of interesting consequences. Cool URIs don't 
break.

>> You don't own a domain name. I'm sorry. I don't know how to explain.
>
> Your connection with it is very tenuous compared to land - but it is a 
> matter of degree.

My point, I repeat it, is I want
	URI permanence and domain name ownership
But that
	It's not now the case. The Web Architecture document could say if the 
system was giving such guarantee of permanence and ownership then.... 
blabla.





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

Received on Thursday, 30 September 2004 21:46:55 GMT

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