W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2007

RE: Building terminological consensus, part 1: Foundations

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:10:13 -0500
Message-Id: <p0623090ec2b95076f15a@[]>
To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
Cc: "www-tag" <www-tag@w3.org>

>Hello Pat, Henry,
>>  >Finally for this first message, note that there is another
>>  >correspondence which I think obtains:
>>  >
>>  >   pl:baptism == [webarch:minting] ([2] itself doesn't actually have a
>>  >                                    term for this, but minting is commonly
>>  >                                    used in discussion of the Web )
>>  >
>>  >In both cases the person who first 'utters' a name has the authority
>>  >and takes the responsibility for determining the
>>  >pl:referent/webarch:resource it will thenceforth
>>  >pl:denote/webarch:identify.
>>  Ah, but (very important point) to take responsibility for
>>  baptizing isn't to actually baptize. There isn't anything in
>>  the webarch: domain corresponding to pl:baptizing,
>>  in fact: a central lack in the Web world picture that
>>  I've been complaining about for years.
>FWIW I think that text around 
>http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-assignment may 
>be relevant.
>Doubtless the terminology will not be to 
>everyones liking, and it may stop short full 
>immersion, but it does concern the establishment 
>of associations of URI with Resources.

Not as far as I can see. Can you be more exact with the citation?

>I'll also note that there are comments to be 
>found in the archive that argue against notions 
>of ownership and delegated authority e.g. [1] 
>(from IANA to scheme spec's to ICANN's DNS 
>registry to DNS registrar to DNS name 
>owner/renter to webmaster to...) arguing perhaps 
>that delegation stops at scheme - taking the FTP 
>and HTTP scheme as example, both provide an 
>operationalise account of what resource is 
>referenced by URI of those particular schemes.
>However, as far as Webarch goes, it places the 
>right and responsibility to 'baptise' on "URI 
>owners" - ownership being established through 
>some social process - eg. I get to own an 
>infinite bunch of URIs for 10 for each 2-year 
>period - which is about 0p each which I suppose 
>is reasonable. That I cease to 'own' them if I 
>fail to pay is maybe more worrying... and what 
>becomes of them once I cease to be around to pay 
>I guess I should care about - but have so far 
>failed to take a socially responsible attitude 
>in that respect :-).

Yes, I've read all of that stuff. It all talks 
about OWNERSHIP. OK, lets take it as undisputed 
that I OWN, say, 
. It is MINE, to do with what I like. (Evil 
cackle, rubbing of hands.)

Now, what I actually want to do with it is, to 
make it denote me. I want to baptize me with that 
URI, to attach that URI to me. HOW DO I DO THAT? 
What constitutes an act of naming, and how is the 
result of that act recorded?  There simply is 
nothing said about this anywhere in the W3C 
corpus, AFAIK. Its a huge gaping gap in the whole 

IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2007 15:10:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:16 UTC