[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm (strayed a bit)
- From: David Brownell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:02:03 -0700
> One could
> debate which of these is more
> artificial but common practice
> and common sense have shown the
> spec to be the more artificial
> of the definitions. It's a locator.
You're presuming a particular outcome of that
debate though ... I'd say that anyone who's really
internalized distinctions between different types of
identifiers (addresses, names, paths, ...) it's quite
clear that there are so many common practices that
alleging one of them to be "common sense" is just a
non-starting position. The same identifier can be
any of the above, depending on context and usage.
> The big issue is what a URI means with
> regards to the ownership of the definition
> of the information it identifies. That
> comes back to the original thread topic
> where yes (despite claims to the contrary),
> the URI may be the assertion of the Copyright
> that sticks (hostile assertion of domain).
Again you're presuming ... just because you call
a table a book doesn't make it become one.
I have the feeling Alice must have had when talking to
Humpty Dumpty. Sure, go ahead and assert whatever
you want. These issues haven't been litigated, and are
unresolved (THAT was the original issue) except that
Internet standards disagree with what you asserted.