Re: freenet URIs and URI ownership

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> Anyone understand freenet?
> 
> As far as I understand freenet URIs have an owner, who often wishes to
> remain anonymous. (Hence the use of freenet).
> 
> Thus, putting too much weight on URIs having an authoritative owner may put
> RDF on the side of centralist big corporate against the more anarchic p2p
> freedom loving hackers.

I don't understand this.  In the previous paragraph, you said freenet
URIs have an owner.  So why is putting weight on URIs having an
authoritative owner a problem?  You may not (e.g., in the case of
freenet) know who the owner is, but is *that* a problem?  Is the problem
to do with being simultaneously "authoritative" and anonymous (and if so
could you explain further)?

> 
> As far as I can see, freenet URIs could be made to work within the framework
> of authoritative statements, since essentially a freenet URI is a URL and so
> the authoritative statement of what a freenet URI means is the content that
> can be retrieved from that URL, if any.
> 
> Jeremy

-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752

Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 11:46:30 UTC