Re: "so-called" keyword and layer 3

[YangWoo Ko <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 06:44:21AM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
> > (i) I'm worried about scaling with them, and especially about
> > creating yet another situation in which someone has to decide who
> > is entitled ("has rights to", "has the best claim on", "most
> > closely matches") some word or string.   In a way, that is
> > another kind of economic constraint, but, if we can meet the
> > technical and end-user requirements without having to implicitly
> > write ICANN, WIPO, or the equivalent into the protocol, I think
> > that is desirable.   I believe that the "no overseer" requirement
> > is more easily satisfied with keywords at sublayer three than at
> > two.
> 
> I know that the introduction of category helps widen the space of potential
> common names for a given service type, but basically, it means IP lawyers
> still decide who can get what.

Dear Yves Arrouye,

If we do not give a specific group an authority to decide who can get,
let me handle "overseer" issue in an extremely dirty way. Let's add
"overseer" as a facet. Then, we have { name string, industry category,
country, overseer } tuple. If overseer is "trademark office" then all 
four attribute values are used to find a unique trademark from trademark
db. Else if overseer is "none" (or "keyword" ?) then "industry category"
field will be empty or not used even if supplied. Do you like it ?

My best regards

-- 
/*------------------------------------------------
YangWoo Ko : [e-mail]
We Invent Enterprise Software Solutions
and Make You Secure & Powerful.
------------------------------------------------*/