Claim against the network ​

Claim against the network answers the question of what a subject may demand from the network's service surface, rather than from the ontology of the object or from the basis of right.

This layer must be kept separate, because otherwise the right to an object or technical access to it begins incorrectly to be read as an obligation of the network to provide any desired service.

What this concerns ​

Claim against the network may relate to:

• a declared storage profile;
• a declared archive depth;
• service availability of a defined regime;
• a declared evidentiary surface;
• a declared regime of published outcomes;
• an explicitly declared service profile.

What it does not mean ​

Claim against the network does not mean:

• ownership of the object;
• a right to content;
• a right to final subject-matter interpretation;
• the automatic admissibility of any action.

Why it is needed separately ​

Without this distinction, typical mistakes arise:

• “if the object is mine, the network must store it in any volume”;
• “if I was given access, the network must provide any form of retrieval”;
• “if the operator sees the object, it must act as its legal custodian.”

All of these readings are wrong for Realith.

Where claim against the network may arise from ​

It arises not from the ontology of the object, but from an explicitly declared service regime or another explicit infrastructural arrangement.

Short formula ​

A right to an object and a claim against the network are not the same thing.

The first concerns the basis for disposing of the object.
The second concerns what the network has actually undertaken to service as a service surface.