The problem with human-meaningful names is that they are not global and cannot be so.

So that leaves local authorities, curators if you will, who are entrusted with the task of keeping the names for things. Maybe this means curating a local version of the names that provide meaningful services to the community; maybe this means curating a local version of the names of people in a community.

In the last century, telephone companies would maintain these sorts of locally-meaningful records, although we have seen clearly that aggregation leads to a wide range of problems, most prominently namespace collision and "gold rush" contention.

Perhaps this sort of task is best left to the non-commercial authority of local librarians granted authority by localised power centres, such as towns, small businesses, divisions of larger businesses, or religious organisations. These people would be entrusted to maintain names on behalf of, say, tens of thousands of people. They would not need to achieve global consensus and they would be discouraged from doing so. They would aim to act in the best, local interest of the people they represent.

Reply

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <b> <i> <strike> <p> <br>

More information about formatting options

Syndicate content