W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2010

Re: ACTION-402 Summarize JAR's message to HT re HTTP-based naming and put on the agenda

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:35:14 -0400
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF9AF54BC6.7C78E8E1-ON852576EF.00557227-852576EF.0055A15F@lotus.com>
Jonathan Rees wrote:

> I've added this to the agenda and marked it "required reading" 
> (knowing that this is probably wishful thinking at this late date)

I didn't see it as of this morning.  It's very possible that I 
inadvertently stepped on it, but in any case I have re-added it at [1,2]. 
Sorry for any confusion.

Noah

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/tag-weekly#persistentNaming
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/03/24-agenda#persistentNaming

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
03/21/2010 09:30 AM
 
        To:     www-tag@w3.org
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Re: ACTION-402 Summarize JAR's message to HT re 
HTTP-based naming and   put on the agenda


An expanded version of the summary is here:

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/03/uris-and-trust.html "URIs and trust"

I've added this to the agenda and marked it "required reading"
(knowing that this is probably wishful thinking at this late date)

Jonathan

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> 
wrote:
> Per ACTION-402 Summarize JAR's message to HT re HTTP-based naming and
> put [its topic?] on the agenda
>
> Re ISSUE-50 URNsAndRegistries, Henry and I wanted to talk about the
> issue of trust in URIs. The particular way in which binding and
> resolution are linked in http: space leads to a certain degree of
> mistrust because it creates single points of administrative failure
> ("the frailty of human institutions"). For example, an archivist,
> librarian, or court would never allow a URI to stand by itself as a
> reference, but would allow other forms of reference to stand. The
> residual mistrust and single point of failure have always seemed
> inevitable (this has been the central argument of the ISSUE-50 draft
> documents), but the fact that society *has* created conventions of
> reference that are highly trusted, lack SPFs, and are resolvable
> (after a fashion) suggests that maybe they are not inevitable. We
> wanted to present some ideas along these lines and consider how one
> might create a useable, trustworthy naming system in URI space (maybe
> even in http: URI space).
>
> Jonathan
>
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2010 15:35:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:20 GMT