[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 15:39:51 -0500

Or what is the extent of the *system*?  If all we 
are talking about is authentication, then a private 
authentication system exists anywhere we are 
doing transactions now.    Shirkey's 
claims are that MS wants to control "the ontology 
of life on the Internet" which isn't exactly a private 
system.  That seems somewhat grandiose 
but if they take that on, they have to be able 
to deal with the problems of identity theft 
and the problems of auditable transactions.  
We are not a one venue world.  

I worry when the global identifier begins 
to be used in local contexts without a relationship 
to the original context of identification.  
I am never the string.  I don't care for a 
machine having opinions; I care if it can 
auto-email my local sheriff and he comes 
to arrest me because someone decided to 
use my GUID to order sex toys.  I live in a 
state where that is a crime.  (go figure...)

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: David Brownell [mailto:david-b@p...]

> But the original question is if the means is 
> system wide, can they assert ownership of means.
 
"Can" or "should"?  If it's a private system,
there would be no problem in either sense ...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>

• Prev by Date: SV: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm
• Next by Date: SV: Copyrighting schemas -- derivation
• Previous by thread: Re: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm
• Next by thread: Re: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread