- From: Bill dehOra <Wdehora@cromwellmedia.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 09:28:54 -0000
- 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. -Bill
Received on Monday, 6 March 2000 04:29:33 UTC