[RFC] Public Name System: Resolution and RDF

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.

1 Like

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.

3 Likes

Let’s face it. The general public won’t care what the name or acronym is. Only the tech people will care.

2 Likes

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

1 Like

I didn’t deny this.

I don’t.

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.

2 Likes

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.

1 Like

No probs @rob. I also appreciate the hours and thought you put into all these discussions. :clap:

1 Like

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.

3 Likes

Safe name
safenet name
safenetwork name

email name
site name
network name

These are just a few.

Domain name is just totally inappropriate as this describes a different system to what is being implemented here and carries all the wrong baggage which is contrary to safe’s fundamentals

  1. that is singular and not the way Domains work. Domains is a multi-tiered control system and a domain denotes your control
  2. Its not authority, its simply whether someone else has already used that name. This is not authority any more than people picking up pieces of paper with names on them from the floor.

@joshuef, what if I were to call you Overlord Joshuef? Or Controller Joshuef? I am pretty sure you would say that its not appropriate and sends the wrong signals as to who you are. Its the same as using Domain names. It is the wrong signal, wrong definition and is not what safenetwork names are all about.

1 Like

SNNS : Safe Network Name Service
SNNS : Safe Network Name System

Has all the words we like and It’s even a palindrome. I like ‘service’ better than ‘system’.

1 Like

NRS is the clear winner at the moment for the the name of the Name Resolution System. It just flows from the tongue

And we can call a name that is used a “safenetwork name”

What is your safenetwork name OR
What is your name on the safenetwork
What name are you using for mail on the safenetwork
etc

1 Like

For the avoidance of doubt, I’m pro <something> name too, it’s just what that something is.

Not to make this debate circle continuously, but I still think from an end user POV, domain name will be the most understandable and usable descriptor.

It may seem, from the bald historic technical internet etymology, to be the incorrect descriptor, but that’s not how language works. It’s fluid and ever-changing, and is defined by the parties using it, not by a central authority (sorry, couldn’t help that :joy:). I mean, December ain’t the tenth month folks.

But I do think it’ll fit the understanding of domain name by existing definition.

“A domain name is an identification string that defines a realm of administrative autonomy, authority or control within the Internet.”

I think this is how users will perceive it. By registering a name, it, and all its paths and subnames will come under my administrative control. I will own it, and be in charge of what data it points to. I’ll be able to allow people access, and even transfer ownership in the future too. It’ll be part of my dominion. On the old web, I used to have to buy/rent/be granted access—but on SAFE, I can own my own little space, my domain, and I can use it for what I want, when I want.


Incidentally, I think if we do end up having two separate namespaces for safeid: and safe: I think perhaps the language might become a touch easier, and maybe public name becomes more workable for the safe: side of things. Although I think we are still on early days for that decision, and it definitely shouldn’t be based on this discussion of terminology!

Either way NRS would work as the system, and it leaves scope for the descriptor to be added depending on the context.

1 Like

(didn’t you want to do a quick survey? My immediate super quick survey lead to 3/3 (+me) intuitively making assumptions that don’t make any sense on safe… I would have expected you might share your findings too if people around you did react in a different way and this would support the domain stuff… )

I’m saying it’s relatively easy to test, and we can do that testing; probably built in around the time we’ll be doing user testing on related user stories.

But right now I’ve got quite a lot on… will get to it though. Let’s just not jump into any name without some testing though.

I agree with everything you say Jim except that I’m not sure about the level of recognition among ordinary people. Also, the two (Safe v clearweb domain) may not be equivalent, and the quote below raises a bigger question that makes it even harder to decide.

I don’t have any objection to domain name if it does the job we want - which I agree is ease of understanding and use by ordinary people. Those who are already technical will adapt more easily, so my priority here is the masses who will be discouraged by relatively tiny barriers, especially the technophobe.

I guess this is a leak from internal discussions? Can we have a topic that describes the logic, because it seems an unnecessary source of UX complexity and confusion, especially considering the priorities I’ve just put forward.

3 Likes

Why didn’t you simply ask your mum instead of arguing pro Domain and claiming that the average person would understand it without anything to support this…

Edit:
Anyway - sorry - I didn’t want to sound too frustrated - but it’s hard for me to understand some attitudes/ways of doing things :wink: I’m glad you do what you do and hope in the end this discussion will result in a state with which everyone can live :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Yeah, that’s why it needs to be tested. BTW I’m happy to be wrong, there is actually something quite satisfying as a UX designer as seeing you ideas proved wrong, by watching real people get to grips with them! As one, it means you are doing your job properly, and two, it usually leads you to a better more usable solution.

So, let’s keep an open mind, and not jump into any solution because of personal preference, or because we are squeamish about an acronym etc.

Yeah, there has been some internal discussions on this, and it was mentioned earlier in the thread, but defo needs its own separate discussion.

1 Like