- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:52:58 -0500
- To: David Allsopp <dallsopp@signal.dera.gov.uk>, RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
David Allsopp <dallsopp@signal.dera.gov.uk> wrote: >>> No; NAMES allow people to give things names. Do you seriously think >>> that people didn't give things names before the Web came along? >> >> Of course, but often these names were meant multiple things or slightly >> different things to different people. There is no authority to define the >> "meaning" of a word. However, it is clear who defines the meaning of a URI >> -- its "owner". > > I don't understand - who 'owns' an arbitrary URI? The owner is defined by the URI scheme. > for example, http://www.microsoft.com/ is clearly owned by MS, but who > owns http://ludicrously.long.domain.name.I.just.invented/, or I don't believe it is owned yet, since it has not been registered with ICANN / root DNS. (I'm not positive, but pretty sure. It may also be considered as if that ICANN owns it, but I don't think so.) > http://www.pixeltronic.com/ which may or may not be a real company (I Similar to above. > haven't checked!), or urn:A23B67B675BErandomlygeneratedgibberish or > similar? That URN would probably be owned by the first person who used it, which is likely the only one because duplication is so unlikely. -- [ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2001 16:53:18 UTC