W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: KD005 URI ownership

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:12:20 -0400
Message-Id: <90739D8F-2213-11D9-8358-000A95718F82@w3.org>
Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>

Le 15 oct. 2004, à 15:27, Norman Walsh a écrit :
> The question of who "owns" a domain name strikes me as a legal issue 
> more
> than an architectural one. The webarch document extolls the virtues of
> URI persistence and explains the notion of ownership, and the rights 
> and
> responsibilities that are associated with it, in a way that I think is
> satisfactory.
>
> Are there any specific changes you would like to suggest to the text?

There was a long thread about that topic on the list. I still don't 
agree with the notion of ownership.

Or if I would like to find an idea of consensus on this issue, it would 
be good to explain and define precisely what the TAG means by 
"ownership"

[[[
	It is useful for a URI scheme to establish a unique relationship 
between a social entity and a URI; this is the case for the "http", 
"mailto", "ftp", and "urn" schemes, for example. This relationship is 
called URI ownership.
]]]- http://w3c.test.site/TR/2004/WD-webarch-20040816/#def-uri-ownership

And
[[[
URI ownership
The relationship between assigning agent and URI that is defined by a 
URI scheme.
]]]

I think that would be worthwhile to define ownership precisely, clearly 
BEFORE to discuss any kind of agreement on this issue.



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

Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2004 22:41:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:48 UTC