I have to disagree with this, unless I'm very dense (likely,
given that I am just for the first time popping up and saying
anything here).
It doesn't matter how Alice's info is used by anybody else; it's
only that that's the original identity of the info.
This actually sounds a lot like one of the issues in copyright --
a lot of people want there to be a sort of "moral right" to
control how a work is used. In fact, in France they have that
sort of thing. But in the US, our entire tradition is against
that -- it's that published information is freely usable; you
just don't copy the original expression.
But I'm probably really, really misunderstanding the point of
this . . .
Seth Johnson
David Karger wrote:
>
> Matthew Cockerill wrote:
>
> > "Sure it's useful as identification but completely useless for
> > discovery as I wouldn't know how to ask for more info about that URI."
> >
> > Yep - it's a floor polish, but most definitely is not a dessert topping.
> > From the Info URI FAQ:
> > http://info-uri.info/registry/docs/misc/faq.html#value
> >
> > "
> > Q. Why are info URIs non-dereferenceable?
> > A. info is focused exclusively on supporting identity [...]
> > "
>
> This above Q&A suggests that the whole info uri concept may be self
> defeating, because identity isn't "supported"---it just is. Consider
> the following scenario. Alice registers the info:alice/* namespace and
> makes some URIs. Bob then makes statements about those uris that alice
> disagrees with. Even worse, Bob, without consulting alice, makes up an
> info:alice/bob uri to talk about himself, and starts making statements
> about it. How exactly has the "registration" of the info:alice
> namespace helped? It certainly doesn't prevent bob from using the uris
> in that namespace.
>
> I would like to raise the conjecture that namespace registration ONLY
> makes sense in situations where the names can be dereferenced, and in
> particular dereferenced under the control of the namespace owner. In
> such systems, the owner can effectively prevent bob from acting on the
> names. For example, the owner of a dns name can prevent anyone else
> from binding that name to a value. But absent dereference, the owner of
> the name has no control.
>
> With RDF, I think the traditional notion of deciding which _names_ to
> trust based on registrations will need to be replaced by decisions about
> which _statements_ to trust based on who is serving those statements.
--
RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P!
http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc
DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders!
New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org
[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc
I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication.
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.
Received on Thu Nov 17 2005 - 05:31:13 EST