[RFC] Public Name System: Resolution and RDF


#61

But domains are not in the safe network. They are public IDs. You know its all personal in SAFE :wink:

Domains brings in a lot of other baggage that is not required for the safe network. Domains had a lot to do with network engineering and mapping out networks etc and less to do with semantics. And to use it for ID naming just grates and just so wrong.

Maybe an example using completely different things might help.

They are both

  • approx round when filled
  • things go into them and back out at a different time
  • both made of synthetic material
  • both are rolled up at times
  • both are rolled out at times
  • both can get holes in them with bad effect
  • both can be used by both men and women
  • and so on

But are they at all similar apart from some attributes? Its almost like chalk and cheese these two, just like public IDs and Domains are. The example was hosiery worn by people and a garden hose.


#62

Others that came to mind today were for SAIS, pronounced “say-I-S”, which has the same syllables as the familiar “Dee-N-S”.

SAIS : Safe Autonomous Identification System

SAIS : Secure Autonomous Identification System

It’s also a play on the French word for “I know”… such as “I know where your XOR is for the requested public ID.” Also hints at the fact that there is AI in the middle of the Safe System. :wink:


#63

SNS anyone?
Secure Naming System.
Simple and to the point.


#64

That one was popular, but @bochaco mentioned that project Solid started talking about a SNS or SolidNS last month…

I like XNS a lot from @draw. Xor Name System is also simple and to the point. It also sounds like an advanced Xtra special Domain Name System that the marketing folks could have fun with.


#65

The XNS acronym is already taken by something similar. From the other <x>NS acronyms I do find the current meaning of QNS cool: Quantity Not Sufficient.


#66

Doesn’t seem like anything that’s widely used and would cause much confusion though


#67

Indeed, after a bit of searching both references seem to be from old, not widely used protocols.


#68

hi all,

We’ve updated the RFC here:

RFC #0052 RDF for public name resolution

David.


#69

I’ve done some small updates / clarifications based on feedback here over the last week or so.

This also involved removing the publicName container info, which I’ll work into its own RFC.

This is in a new PR: https://github.com/maidsafe/rfcs/pull/284


#70

There has been a long and occasionally heated discussion on simplifying RDF on a w3 mailing list I subscribe to. Can’t say I understand a great deal of what’s going on, but a guy called David Booth has helpfully summarised the discussions here https://docs.google.com/document/d/12cPE-oi90bde1phn0H0_tJQzYAJ7gD1mQl13H0Lo694/edit# Just mentioning it in case it’s useful.