W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > March 2000

RE: Subclass of Thing/Resource

From: Bill dehOra <Wdehora@cromwellmedia.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 09:28:54 -0000
Message-ID: <AA4C152BA2F9D211B9DD0008C79F760A5CA481@odin.cromwellmedia.co.uk>
To: "'Jeff Sussna'" <jeff.sussna@quokka.com>, "'guha@epinions-inc.com'" <guha@epinions-inc.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: www-rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

:Why can't a person have a URI? 

In the not so distant future, people may more likely be uniquely identified
using combinations of biometric data. I guess we could indirect a URI to
this. It's more interesting to ask why we would want someone to have a URI
at all.

What could have a URI or a URI pointing to a set of URI's thereof, is the
set of data that is identified as belonging or pertaining to an individual.
Of course that implies a radical rethink about how we store and retrieve
data, and just as fundamentally, how we decide who owns such data.
Currently, most of the data about a person is not owned by that person. The
most interesting work done in this regard is recent times is probably Eric
Freeman's Lifestreams. 

Received on Monday, 6 March 2000 04:29:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:22 UTC