- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:34:43 +0000
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 08:15 PM 11/21/02 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >Frank asked me to explain what the problem was better ... > >DanC's news URI is perhaps a better ownerless example. > >With the freenet ones it's perhaps a wording problem: > > > > > [[ > > The social conventions surrounding use of RDF include the idea > > that each URI > > 'belongs to' somebody who has authority and responsibility for > > defining its > > meaning. > >Perhaps changing this wording to explicitly talk about URLs allows the owner >to retain anonymity ... As is, this wording permits the Mr Example to >publish a press release (not on the web) to announce the meaning of >http://www.example.com/ . > >Hmmm ... maybe I am reading this too closely. Maybe so... the existence of that someone doesn't mean you can find out who they are. More important, I think, is that you can find out what they say about the URI concerned. Of course there are then issues of authenticity, etc., but I think that's way out of scope. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 09:36:03 UTC