[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm (strayed a bit)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: David Brownell <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:17:49 -0500
From: David Brownell [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>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.
If they see "http://anything ", they click on it.
The context is the browser and web user not privy
to the abstractions of the specification.
>> 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.
Perhaps a presumption. But just because we
call "http://anything" an identifier doesn't
mean the courts aren't free to make it evidence
of proprietary labeling and the asserting of
ownership given that within the system in which
it operates, it is presumed to be unique and
therefore, the one assertion that meets the
criteria of being capable of supporting that
assertion. "Quacks like a duck." This
doesn't make it right; it makes it useful
and so far, utility has been the one argument
used to support the URI definition: it is
Again, an issue of the authority to choose a
choice. In this case, the W3C and IETF aren't
>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.
*Private consortia cannot make law*. You are falling
off the wall and the king's men can put you together
again, but perhaps they won't. By choosing to sit
on the wall, you assumed the risk.