[RFC] Public Name System: Resolution and RDF

The access to the naming system is public, but to call it a public naming system is like calling

  • phone book a “Public Phone Book” (Talking of the paper phone books of history)
  • Cinema a “Public Cinema”
  • Dictionary a “Public Word Book” Even “Word Definition Book” is better
  • Supermarket’s price list a “Public Price List”

When something is inherently public then adding “Public” to the front is senseless and of the same vein as calling “DNS” Domain Name System system OR DNS System. It is doubling up and begs the question where is the Private Naming System

3 Likes

To avoid misunderstandings: do you mean next week June 13 or this week June 6?

This . . . . . … . .

1 Like

Right, sorry I’ve failed to get my point over clearly, sorry.

I wasn’t arguing for calling anything Public Whatever, I was trying to say that, just because the document you find is available for anyone to retrieve, doesn’t imply that private things cannot occur as a result of retrieving it. And so there’s no misnomer calling it public (if you so wanted to).

1 Like

Thanks that makes more sense. [tongue in cheek] So we can dispense with PeNiS and choose a better one on Friday. That will be a relief to all us school boys who have aged too many years :dizzy_face:

I don’t think we should lose sight of the fundamental purpose of these names: to make urls readable, type-able, pronounceable; allowing humans to communicate effectively, and in a way that we all know we are talking about the same thing.

Solving squatting or ownership issues should com secondary to this, and we need to be wary of unintended consequences when trying to ‘fix’ a problem such as this.

Yeah, squatting will happen for sure, but on the clear net, it’s also been responsible for creating uniqueness, and people work around it quite happily.

It seems to me that a simple naming solution with no middle men (or any other layers of complexity) + the potential for a pet naming system on top, gives us all we could need in terms of that fundamental purpose.

2 Likes

This is the most sensible suggestion I think.

It takes an already widely used and understood term among end users (even if it is not etymologically ‘pure’, it clearly describes the entity. Yay language!) and gives it the wiggle room to evolve on its own. Rather than lots of upfront explaining required.

Could that be added to the poll?

It also wouldn’t preclude out the use NRS along side it, if SDNS doens’t get past the @rob filter :joy:

1 Like

If you meant instead ‘I think we should not lose sight of the fundament purpose…’, then I understand what you’re saying :wink:
Edit: I see it is corrected.

2 Likes

Yup! :man_facepalming:

4 Likes

If you want to vote in the poll or change your vote then there is a minimum of 12 hours before it is closed.

Vote now or change vote if needed here [RFC] Public Name System: Resolution and RDF

No SDNS for me to vote for tho :wink:

1 Like

People can say if they prefer that here and if enough say they want it we could redo the poll for another week

I think we’ve got least 3 potential voters for SDNS (@bzee, @happybeing and myself), which would put it 2nd in the (slightly time skewed) poll.

Although I’m still arguing for naming the entity and system independently, with the more important bit being the entity.

I support suspending this poll in order to focus on naming the entity. We can consider the system name options that follow each entity choice.

Do people accept that the entity name is more important to get right? I haven’t seen anyone dissent on that.

1 Like

Personally I don’t mind. But it would be a good idea to not use PNS when discussing the thing during the period before for definitive choice. Certainly if that will turn out to be a long period.

What entity? I am strongly pro different options and thus there is no such thing as an entity Oo

Maybe we are talking about a scheme and/or this is just a language difficulty…?

Sorry for being unclear:

  • entity = public name
  • scheme /system = naming scheme /system
1 Like

Having a look at it I can remove the last 3 of the extra entries and put SDNS into there

Everyone can now change the vote and it’ll close next week sometime now.

1 Like

The problem is that none of the ones we have come up with so far have been all that good… That’s why it’s been so hard to decide.

Everything so far is either too complicated, too copycat, too dirty, or boring.

2 Likes

Well NRS was quite logical and sensible. Not sexy or childish but sensible.

2 Likes