Oh yes I agree. But what I’m saying is the molecule of the username will be made of the atoms of domain names, that may need to be describes/understood, even by lay people. So it’s this atom I’m discussing the naming of.
Is it helpful or confusing if the ID namespace is separate to that of domains (orwhathaveyou)?
ie, you could register the
@jim username, without the
Ok, the only area of uncertainty and disagreement then is the suitability of ‘domain’, and I think you can’t consider that without including the sub domain ‘atom’.
Also, I think that this can’t be finally decided without knowing how related parts fit together (in UI/UX) and are named, such as the ‘molecule’.
What do you mean by username Josh? Are we now allowing the account secret to be like a conventional username, or are you talking about something else?
I was presuming you could have an
@jim SafeID even if you chose not to publish any data at
But are you suggesting they could have separate owners? I could register @jim and you could register safe://jim ?
Ah yes, I remember now! We were talking the other day about having both
safe-id:// (the latter just for resolving SafeIDs).
I think there’s merit in it, but be nice to explore the UX possibilities in each. Perhaps one for another thread!
Did you look up the definition of Domain. SAFE does not have domains.
Please use definitions correctly or we bastardise the network.
Domains are regions of the (office, intra&internet) network, some large others small but it denotes ownership of the network. And this is emphasised by the massive ownership by certain domains like google all the ISPs and so on. So Domains also bring with it the idea in people’s subconsciousness that SAFE will also be owned by the big companies and misusing the definition of domain you will cement the concept that SAFE is to be owned by companies.
DOMAINS is very much the wrong thing to use here.
Just use NAME, its what the ordinary person knows.
Name resolution is what is happening here. Not bloody domains
It is NAME, that is all. Please lets (all of us, not you personally) stop with trying to act smart and all that and just call it for what it is a NAME and the system is Name Resolution System. For too long the technical people who want to act smart make these names so that ordinary people look up to them. Some Engineers are guilty of this too, but many engineers like keeping it simple.
The most I would go is to call it “What is your Safenetwork Name” to distinguish it from personal name or married name or facebook name or nick name or …
We all have various names in real life, actual Name, full name, maiden name, pet name, nick name, facebook name, forum name, and the list goes on. So it is not such a hard concept to have multiple Names and IDs for the person’s account.
Please remove domains from this, it is incorrect terminology since domains relate to a different concept.
Average Joe and Jane Public people call it a “website”. The term “domain” is only used by Tom and Tina Techie people.
Is one interpretation. Turns out it didn’t/doesn’t always mean that
So pre inter-networking age, a domain was an area or territory. Then that term was co-opted for what you describe. I see no reason such change / adaptation of language cannot continue if it’s desirable. (Which is yet to be ascertained)
computing example when looking for definition could be applied to SAFE using a resolution system as proposed above (where it was proposed to call it
name, so please don’t think I’m arguing for or against one thing here.) A
MutableData (to become
AppendableData) that is actually
owned by a given entity in that resolution system. Sure sounds like that owner’s domain to me…
Anywho, I’m also not suggesting that it won’t be confusing for some folks. Choosing the best term for this domain/name/atom etc is a balancing act. And I think @JimCollinson has a reasoned approach to trying to identify how that might work for ‘normal folk’ (whatever that means). But as yourself @rob and @riddim have pointed out, there’s other subsets that will find that to be less than desirable. So aye, we’re trying to do a balancing act here (at least I am), and it’s new stuff so I don’t think there’s any right or wrong per se, and pretending as such is often not that helpful.
I think this is a fair point and something I’ve been thinking on in the “what do you type into the addressbar?” context. Though that gets muddied if you’re not going to use it for a website.
So maybe it’s just
That depends on resolvers etc (as you note in your next post). We’d bandied around the idea of another protocol/resolver for IDs only. But we could even potentially just drop the
safe-id: part for example, so just entering
@jim grabs your SAFE-ID (though wouldn’t grab any other type of data, eg).
Sorry, bad choice of words / lack of context there. I was suggesting using
@happybeing for a SAFE-ID (and its resolution) seems analogous to a twitter handle/username eg (And I think was compared to such above… somewhere…? though maybe not). I was not meaning to dive into the network account vocab.
Thank you for lookihng it up for yourself.
SAFE does not have any domains according to any of those definitions as you can see for yourself. So why try and force safe to have them when people do not see it that way. As other said they convert it to web site names. They see the domains of the internet for what they are Commercial and companies who own their domain of the internet.
SAFE has NAMES and use them as the initial part of an address as you suggest
Would it matter much how you’re going to call it? People will mostly probably keep saying what they say now: literally ‘go to (safe://)whatever’ or use name, address, domain etc…
Maybe the ones who do pay attention how it is called officially/in the documentation, are generally more ‘IT’ savvy anyways.
Also in Chrome: I can imagine that for a lot of people there is not much difference between the address bar and using google to get to where they want to go.
While I’m not convinced that domain is the best term, I don’t follow your objection on semantic grounds. I agree it is different, but it is also the same in significant respects - use for a website, and services at a given name is equivalent to a domain and has similar meaning IMO.
We may wish to change that meaning, fit example to avoid the ‘subconscious’ association with ownership you describe. But I’m not convinced of that either, because SAFE makes such locations on the SAFE web even more securely owned than on clear Web, where domains can be lost, stolen or removed from the rightful owner.
Domain is associated with control and ownership and that is delegated from a higher authority which typically has a higher controller/owner/authority and is why its a hierarchical system. And so if we use Domains for SAFE then for anyone who knows about domains will consider SAFE a system where there are higher authorities in a hierarchical system. And so get the idea that google & facebook owns most of SAFE just like people now consider google and facebook own most of the internet
Changing what meaning. Domains is just inaccurate and does not describe what SAFE is or is doing. So we are not changing away from domain names since it NEVER meant domains in the first place.
In SAFE we do not have any authority giving a person control over any domain, but rather the person choosing their own name they want and if it has not been taken then they can record their name. No authority, just availability.
I get the idea to use a familiar term for what is being implemented but its silly to try and use a control system name for a user determined system that does not fit any description for this control hierarchical system that was invented for control ove
EDIT: just to add - we need to consider long term and not the initial system used by geeks who love confusing terms ordinary people do not understand. Keep it simple for long term survival.
Domain doesn’t require, or to me imply a hierarchy above the domain itself. That’s an artifact of the DNS, not IMO part of the semantics of the word.
In generic terms, “my domain” means I’m the authority - so SAFE is where we have autonomous domains, much like a country of our own. If a domain is not autonomous, but granted and easily taken away, it isn’t really my domain at all. So it seems to me that it’s the clear Web meaning that is wrong, or at least less appropriate.
However, as stated, I’m not convinced that domain has sufficient recognition to be used in this context for the general public. I wanted to understand your argument better that’s all.
Let’s face it. The general public won’t care what the name or acronym is. Only the tech people will care.
The definition requires hierarchical
It is an inappropriate word to use for this system.
It also carries too much baggage from the internet. Control, ownership, google and so on
WHY do you want to use a word that does not mean what SAFE is doing here? Why not use real correct words, like “name”
To give an example of the silliness of Domains for a simple naming system
The country has a water domains for the supply of the country’s water and the government department rules over the various regional water commissions which rule over the water boards in each county.
Then we introduce a wonderful system where each house collects its own water and extracts all the water it needs from the atmosphere. Would you call that water domains or the water board or water commissions or water department. No of course you would not. Its just house water.
So why take a hierarchical domain control system and use it for calling a simple NAME system that has no hierarchical anything or no control systems build in
Just renew your thinking and do away with inappropriate words for calling this system, do not fall into the trap of trying to redefine wards that have definite definitions already. It will cause confusion at best and at worse people using it the wrong way and getting into trouble trying to work out why it does not work like domains, which translates into users getting al sorts of problems because the web page designers are using it wrong
I didn’t deny this.
Why not use real correct words, like “name”
This or something similar is my current favourite.
Have your read and understood what I’ve written? Happy to clarify if it isn’t clear.
Just renew your thinking and do away with inappropriate words for calling this system, do not fall into the trap of trying to redefine wards that have definite definitions already.
I like you @rob but this doesn’t come across well, nor quite a lot of what you’ve written on this topic. Just my opinion.
Well you did say in the quote I quoted it did not require.
The rest of my post was not directed at you personally but @joshuef who seemed to still want it.
I apologise for my misreading of your post.
No probs @rob. I also appreciate the hours and thought you put into all these discussions.
Domain still seems reasonable to me, though I wouldn’t say it’s my preference. (Indeed, I’m quite pro
<something> name, as per the RFC.)
What I’m saying is though, I don’t agree with your discounting of domain as I pointed out above. And if you are looking for further hierarchy (which in my reading of the definition isn’t needed), then I’d suggest the network is the authority you seek. If it gives it you, it’s yours. And similarly, were there to be a network fork and an agreed upon change (at some grand and very improbable scale). It could be taken away from you.
But anywho, I’m not massively pro domain, but I do think it is as valid as many other suggestions here.