Owning URIs (Was: Yet Another LOD cloud browser)

David,

On 2009-05 -18, at 07:20, David Huynh wrote:

> Sherman Monroe wrote:
> [...] For example, when I search for Microsoft on Google, the first  
> result not only IS what I want, but also LOOKs like what I want. I  
> can make the decision to click on it within maybe 1 or 2 seconds.  
> The URL "www.microsoft.com" in that search result is perhaps the  
> most convincing element, as I know only *the* Microsoft can possibly  
> own that domain. (This will be a challenge for any SW search engine,  
> because no-one can own any URI, and so, seeing a URI alone means  
> pretty much nothing. That's one of the main differences between URL  
> and URI, which is usually swept under the rug.)

I had to pick up in "no-one can own any URI".

First of all, terms:  URL is not really a term in the architecture of  
the WWW.  I find it best to use "URI".  "URL" does occur in the  
browser UI, but in the specs it has been used for various things,  
often a derogatory term for a URI which might change. How are you  
using it here? To mean the URI of a web page?
To mean an " http:"  URI?  If not, then why are you dealing with URIs  
which are not HTTP URIs (tch, tch! :-)?  If so, then why don't you  
think these HTTP URIs in the semantic web are owned?

Why can't the semantic web track 'whois' information of domain  
ownership, and maybe even SLL certificate information, of sites and be  
aware of the social relationships, and use them intelligently?  
(perhaps more safely than a human who will be confused by http://www.microsoft.com.1000ripyouoff.crime/ 
  ?) .  It is true that the delegation of information within a site is  
not typically made explicit (though it could be with site metadata).   
But there is in general a system of ownership of URIs, it seems to me,  
and it is important on the SW in the social processes by which  
different groups get to define what different terms mean.  So "no-one  
can own any URI" set off a red flag for me.

Tim