- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:48:53 +0100
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Cc: "'Stuart Williams'" <skw@hp.com>, public-webarch-comments@w3.org
On Sep 16, 2004, at 11:03 PM, Larry Masinter wrote: [...] > I would be happy to dispense entirely with the notion of > "ownership", since I think it makes the web architecture > messy and adds an unnecessary complexity. I'd be happier > to talk about "capabilities" rather than "ownership", and > then, just for resources. There are some individuals, groups, > or technical (why 'social'?) entities that have the capability > to modify resources, and change the behavior seen when > resources are contacted or asked for representation. At first I didn't like this suggestion; the motivation for "social entity" has been clear to me: to relate web publishing to traditional publishing, w.r.t. liabilities and such. But then reading on... [...] > what actually happens here doesn't have much to do with "ownership > rights" and more to do with "capability to modify resources identified > by one or more URIs" Now I begin to see the appeal. I can imagine that might make things more simple and direct. I'm mulling it over. -- Dan
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2004 23:48:55 UTC