[RFC] Public Name System: Resolution and RDF

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

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.


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…

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

Because just asking your mum isn’t the way to get good reliable evidence. It might be a starting point in creating a design hypothesis, which could then be evaluated, which is what I was proposing.

(Incidentally, I did ask a few family members at the start of my thinking about this, and got quite different answers from your similar straw-poll).

I’ve not claimed I had evidence to support this, I’ve said I suspected it would be the case, and that it should be tested; just like any other term should be tested if we want to have confidence it is the right thing to be doing.

1 Like

You are so last decade. No one now says domain, but they say web site. Exception being the 5% of geeks. 95% are not that use the internet now

That is slang definition

But note it still states clearly Authority or control which is NOT what SAFE is implementing. NRS is not a control system over ownership of the internet

I guess some are so set in their ways that everying with a name is a “domain name” and cannot see the forrest for the one tree they keep looking at. Sorry but this is not very smart thinking to keep on with domain names as a potential naimg system for safe which is actually ANTI-domains.

1 Like

Well - depending on how you asked this then should be a nice indicator

? ! ? ! I really hope that this is not becoming an academic task… I am glad that the current roadmap on the website simply appeared at some point… The last (planned) Roadmap before that got a Roadmap of its own, was mentioned weekly in the updates and after months was sentenced to death because of it being too energy/time consuming to create … All we wanted was an indicator where we are…

And with the naming all I want is a non misleading name - I don’t care what name… Just not misleading and simple… (+a fun acronym or palindrome would be optional) - and I don’t want a democratic process for this and it should not consume more than 1 hour of thinking time off maidsafe the company…

So strategy is: choose whatever you want > someone else think it’s important enough to raise his voice > that one needs to suggest a different option (never the same again) > until nobody has objections anymore

1 Like

Call things for what they are.

The names on safenetwork are safenetwork names. So simple. And its a Name resolution System or other appropriate.

Control systems are not appropriate

1 Like

In most contexts they’ll probably say website, yeah. Or web address.

But… what if I want to create a website, and host it somewhere, and create an address for it? What might I need? How might I describe the thing that I need? What might I call that thing that would make up the address of the site I’m making, and also be used to send messages to me, and as an email, and might be used to for a username etc?

What if I’m confronted with the requirement to create this entity when I’m opening a SAFE account, how might it be described to me in a way that I can relate to it, and understand all the ways that I can and might need to use it on the network?

This is the task of language for UX.

If there is a term that does this well, and has the lowest friction, and also happily sits well with the technical underpinnings of the network, then splendid! But we won’t find out which it is by just arguing about it on a dev forum.

1 Like

:point_up_2: (was meant as support for @rob s ‘just call things what they are’ - in this case safe names or safenetwork names or sha-names or… But not Domains which is misleading… )

Website address / website name

On the internet then it is required to be a domain name in technical speak.

In people speak it is what name will I have for my website.

On SAFE then people will simply say what name do i want for my safesite.

I am over 60 and used domain names since they were used. And for SAFE domain is so foreign that it hurts my brain to hear people even considering that domains is even suitable for SAFE. Even your slang definition showed it as inappropriate with it being Authority and control system that gives you permission to use a name as long as you PAY for it. Domains == PAY the authority each year or they will take it from you

1 Like

My dudes… just take a look at the length of this thread.

1 Like

Exactly my point and why I will try to stay out of this again…

And you are coming across as hand waving genuine concerns that Maidsafe devs want in the end to just use domain names instead of what is right in front of your eyes. safe name, or safenetwork name or safesite name

Non geek people are already doing that with the current internet and do not use domain names anymore than they use “myspace”

94% of geeks in this topic did not choose domain name system

1 Like


… And I don’t see a point in investing lifetime into a discussion that just exists to justify a decision that more or less has been made anyway… (feeling reminded on the annoying encoding discussion that has consumes way too much of my lifetime… )

Wouldn’t it make way more sense to discuss this in the main forum anyway if you want to get the opinion of ‘more or less regular people’ and not only developers…?

1 Like

No, actually I saying quite the opposite. I’m saying let’s keep an open mind, let’s think of the end user first and foremost, and let’s find a way of testing so that we can have confidence in the decisions we are making.

I think we’ve been pretty accommodating and open wouldn’t you? We are all sharing our opinions, and having them listened too, are we not?

Given that most of this chat stemmed from the fact that folk somehow were squeamish about PNS (which is pretty inconsequential in the scheme of things.) I don’t think you can say that. TBH if the PNS thing hadn’t be brought up, we’d have probably just continued in calling them public names.

I was really responding to the statement that a 1. people didn’t care about the name (not true) 2. a democratic process wasn’t desired (also don’t think thats true) and 3. that simple, understandable, non-misleading names for new technology with a massively diverse user base can be created in just an hour of someones time.

Sorry that is not my opinion, name is important and why choosing an inappropriate name is very important not to do. Unless you want SAFE to just appear to be the current internet in people’s minds by using the geek names - domains

I didn’t get this impression that people didn’t want to have a democratic process.

Which is why we should drop inappropriate names when shown to be so and consider more appropriate when suggested.

But we have the trend on the internet that the non-geeks have spoken they do want to use the term domain names and are using names like website name, website address, email address, and so on.

SAFE is simple for the user so there is no reason not use use simple names/terms/concepts so that the tech uneducated do not need to learn special definitions to understand how to access a safesite.

My suggestion is something like safename for how to refer to a name in the safe network. A name can be used for all sort of things, and so for a safesite it might be qualified and referred to as a safesite name or safenet address. For mail it could be safemail name. Address is not really legit for mail in SAFE since there is no address and its just the name entered into the mail app.

Not I am not against another way to refer to safe names, as long as its simple and fits with the way people think of referring to other people and sites now-a-days

Anyhow I think I’ll leave it there till good simple ways to refer to names is suggested. I have been pretty clear to my objections to complex references and the use of domains

1 Like