Subject: [webfinger] Registration of a URN for WebFinger Properties

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 01:22:59 +0000

Folks,

As you know, properties (both link and subject-specific properties) are 
identified via a URI.  For applications that are defined outside the 
IETF, those organizations are able to define any URI they wish to use.  
For any we might define within the IETF, however, we need something.

In anticipation of having such a need, I think we should create a 
document along the lines of RFC 6755 for WebFinger.  Specifically, we 
would define a URN sub-namespace as:

    urn:ietf:params:webfinger

One such potentially-useful subject-specific properties are "name", 
which would be the the subject's name intended for human consumption.  
If you've queried my WebFinger server, you would know I currently 
advertise my name in English and Chinese.  For the "default" name, the 
URN might be:

    urn:ietf:params:webfinger:name

For language-specific variants, it might be:

    urn:ietf:params:webfinger:name:zh-CN

Defining the various properties and their meaning is an exercise for 
another day, but I hope you see the value in defining the URN 
sub-namespace.

Thoughts?

Paul

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 21:43:30 -0400

> Defining the various properties and their meaning is an exercise for another
> day, but I hope you see the value in defining the URN sub-namespace.

I do, but I don't see the value of defining it *before* there's
something to register in it.  Had it been defined in the webfinger
spec, I'd say fine.  But it seems unnecessary to mint a document just
to define it.  Why not just let the first usage of it do the defining?

Barry

---

From: Melvin Carvalho <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 15:19:42 +0200

On 5 October 2013 03:22, Paul E. Jones <[email-masked]> wrote:

> identified via a URI.  For applications that are defined outside the IETF,
> those organizations are able to define any URI they wish to use.  For any
> we might define within the IETF, however, we need something.
>
> In anticipation of having such a need, I think we should create a document
> along the lines of RFC 6755 for WebFinger.  Specifically, we would define a
> URN sub-namespace as:
>
> One such potentially-useful subject-specific properties are "name", which
> would be the the subject's name intended for human consumption.  If you've
> queried my WebFinger server, you would know I currently advertise my name
> in English and Chinese.  For the "default" name, the URN might be:
>
> another day, but I hope you see the value in defining the URN sub-namespace.
>

Cant this be done using traditional HTTP keys.  The advantage being that
they can be systematically dereferenced using http GET, rather than having
to look it up in a central registry in a non machine readable way.  This is
what has been going on for 10+ years, with FOAF, schema.org, open graph
protocol and others.  Have I missed something?

>
> Thoughts?
>
> Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
>
>

---

From: John Bradley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 15:05:25 +0100

That was my assumption as well.   There is no requirement for a URN namespace,.

Documenting the usage of the agreed http URI keys is the task that needs to undertaken by someone,

John B.

On 2013-10-06, at 2:19 PM, Melvin Carvalho <[email-masked]> wrote:

> As you know, properties (both link and subject-specific properties) are identified via a URI.  For applications that are defined outside the IETF, those organizations are able to define any URI they wish to use.  For any we might define within the IETF, however, we need something.
>  
> In anticipation of having such a need, I think we should create a document along the lines of RFC 6755 for WebFinger.  Specifically, we would define a URN sub-namespace as:
>  
> One such potentially-useful subject-specific properties are "name", which would be the the subject's name intended for human consumption.  If you've queried my WebFinger server, you would know I currently advertise my name in English and Chinese.  For the "default" name, the URN might be:
>  
> Defining the various properties and their meaning is an exercise for another day, but I hope you see the value in defining the URN sub-namespace.
> 
> Cant this be done using traditional HTTP keys.  The advantage being that they can be systematically dereferenced using http GET, rather than having to look it up in a central registry in a non machine readable way.  This is what has been going on for 10+ years, with FOAF, schema.org, open graph protocol and others.  Have I missed something?
>  
>  
> Thoughts?
>  
> Paul
>  
>

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 11:16:38 -0400

Yes, any URI can be used to identify a property. However, there has to be some agreed scheme and structure for things defined in the IETF. The point of the suggestion was to specify that.

We could use HTTP, but I've never seen that scheme used in IETF documents for this type of thing. I've seen URNs, though.

Paul

---

From: Will Norris <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:48:59 -0700

There irony here is that WebFinger itself was created to solve the problem
of resolving an otherwise unresolvable URI (originally mailto and later
acct URIs).  URNs have the same problem, and since they have no
well-defined host, you can't even use WebFinger to resolve them.  I know
there have been some efforts to define URN resolution (rfc2483 et al), but
as far as I know none are very well adopted.  Using HTTP URIs makes the
most sense to me.

But do we really need yet another registry of properties, the vast majority
of which I'm sure have been defined in a dozen other places?  Is there a
reason why reusing one of these existing namespaces would not work?  (and
if something WebFinger specific really is desirable, then we can continue
using webfinger.net, which has already been used for
http://webfinger.net/rel/avatar/ and http://webfinger.net/rel/profile-page/.
 That was kind of the idea of running it as a static site out of the GitHub
"webfinger" org; it's very easy to give others access to everything.
 That's what we've done with activitystrea.ms for several years now)

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Paul E. Jones <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Yes, any URI can be used to identify a property. However, there has to be
> some agreed scheme and structure for things defined in the IETF. The point
> of the suggestion was to specify that.
>
> We could use HTTP, but I've never seen that scheme used in IETF documents
> for this type of thing. I've seen URNs, though.
>
> Paul
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Melvin Carvalho <[email-masked]>
> *Sent:* Sun Oct 06 09:19:42 EDT 2013
> *To:* "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
> *Cc:* webfinger <[email-masked]>
> *Subject:* Re: [webfinger] Registration of a URN for WebFinger Properties
>
>
>
>
>> document along the lines of RFC 6755 for WebFinger.  Specifically, we would
>> define a URN sub-namespace as:
>>

---

From: Melvin Carvalho <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:53:14 +0200

On 10 October 2013 19:48, Will Norris <[email-masked]> wrote:

> But do we really need yet another registry of properties, the vast
> majority of which I'm sure have been defined in a dozen other places?  Is
> there a reason why reusing one of these existing namespaces would not work?
>  (and if something WebFinger specific really is desirable, then we can
> continue using webfinger.net, which has already been used for
> http://webfinger.net/rel/avatar/ and
> http://webfinger.net/rel/profile-page/.  That was kind of the idea of
> running it as a static site out of the GitHub "webfinger" org; it's very
> easy to give others access to everything.  That's what we've done with
> activitystrea.ms for several years now)
>

+1

Yes, that's nice but Id suggest it's better to put all the terms in one
single file to reduce multiple HTTP GETs and maintenance.

Also I forgot to mention VCard which also covers a lot of terms needed.

>
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Paul E. Jones <[email-masked]>wrote:
>
>>> which would be the the subject's name intended for human consumption.  If
>>> you've queried my WebFinger server, you would know I currently advertise my
>>> name in English and Chinese.  For the "default" name, the URN might be:
>>>

---

From: Will Norris <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:03:26 -0700

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Melvin Carvalho
<[email-masked]>wrote:

>> There irony here is that WebFinger itself was created to solve the
>> problem of resolving an otherwise unresolvable URI (originally mailto and
>> later acct URIs).  URNs have the same problem, and since they have no

multiple GETs by whom?  I suspect that these will typically resolve to
human readable descriptions of the properties... I don't imagine they'd be
automatically fetched by anything/anyone.  We could of course embed some
machine readable version of the property in the pages, but even then I'm
not exactly sure what the use-case would be.  That said, I don't actually
have strong feelings on this.

> Also I forgot to mention VCard which also covers a lot of terms needed.

yep, though I'm not sure if they have URI equivalents for property names.
 There is a URN for the XML namespace (urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:vcard-4.0),
but that's gets us back to where we started.

>>> Yes, any URI can be used to identify a property. However, there has to
>>> be some agreed scheme and structure for things defined in the IETF. The
>>> point of the suggestion was to specify that.
>>>
>>> We could use HTTP, but I've never seen that scheme used in IETF
>>> documents for this type of thing. I've seen URNs, though.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>

---

From: Melvin Carvalho <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:13:53 +0200

On 10 October 2013 20:03, Will Norris <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Melvin Carvalho <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>

http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-vcard-rdf-20130924/

>>>>> As you know, properties (both link and subject-specific properties)
>>>>> are identified via a URI.  For applications that are defined outside the
>>>>> IETF, those organizations are able to define any URI they wish to use.  For
>>>>> any we might define within the IETF, however, we need something.
>>>>>
>>>> Cant this be done using traditional HTTP keys.  The advantage being
>>>> that they can be systematically dereferenced using http GET, rather than
>>>> having to look it up in a central registry in a non machine readable way.
>>>> This is what has been going on for 10+ years, with FOAF, schema.org,
>>>> open graph protocol and others.  Have I missed something?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>>

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 22:34:17 +0000

Will,

The reason is to have one set of identifiers that people can agree to 
use.  There are two types of identifiers, too:
     * Link relations types
     * Properties

As you point out, there are several link relations already defined.  
I've cataloged some of them:
http://www.packetizer.com/webfinger/link_relations.html

Some that are interesting to me did not exist,  so I made up values.

There are also properties, and I've not seen any described formally 
anywhere.  I've defined a ones I find useful:
http://www.packetizer.com/webfinger/properties.html

There are more defined out there, I'm sure.  And it's perfectly OK for 
applications to define whatever they want.

However, there are a few that I think really should be defined by the 
IETF.  If we don't do that, then we at least need to have an informal 
agreement on, for example, how to get a person's name.  Otherwise, some 
link relation types or property identifiers are likely to get defined 
with 10 different identifiers, yet carry the same semantics.

Paul

------ Original Message ------
From: "Will Norris" <[email-masked]>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Melvin Carvalho" <[email-masked]>; "webfinger" 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: 10/10/2013 1:48:59 PM
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Registration of a URN for WebFinger Properties
>problem of resolving an otherwise unresolvable URI (originally mailto 
>and later acct URIs).  URNs have the same problem, and since they have 
>no well-defined host, you can't even use WebFinger to resolve them.  I 
>know there have been some efforts to define URN resolution (rfc2483 et 
>al), but as far as I know none are very well adopted.  Using HTTP URIs 
>makes the most sense to me.
>
>majority of which I'm sure have been defined in a dozen other places?  
>Is there a reason why reusing one of these existing namespaces would 
>not work?  (and if something WebFinger specific really is desirable, 
>then we can continue using webfinger.net, which has already been used 
>for http://webfinger.net/rel/avatar/ and 
>running it as a static site out of the GitHub "webfinger" org; it's 
>very easy to give others access to everything.  That's what we've done 
>with activitystrea.ms for several years now)
>
>
>>be some agreed scheme and structure for things defined in the IETF. 
>>The point of the suggestion was to specify that.
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>are identified via a URI.  For applications that are defined outside 
>>>the IETF, those organizations are able to define any URI they wish to 
>>>use.  For any we might define within the IETF, however, we need 
>>>something.
>>>
>>>advertise my name in English and Chinese.  For the "default" name, 
>>>the URN might be:
>>>
>>that they can be systematically dereferenced using http GET, rather 
>>than having to look it up in a central registry in a non machine 
>>readable way.  This is what has been going on for 10+ years, with 
>>FOAF, schema.org, open graph protocol and others.  Have I missed 
>>something?
>>
>>>
>>>Thoughts?
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>
>>>

---

From: Melvin Carvalho <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 00:56:55 +0200

On 11 October 2013 00:34, Paul E. Jones <[email-masked]> wrote:

> As you point out, there are several link relations already defined.  I've
> cataloged some of them:

Regarding name, just from the top of my head (I didnt include PoCo,
OpenSocial, PIM, DOAP, but you could search for them)

http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_name
https://schema.org/name
http://graph.facebook.com/schema/user#name
http://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf/#d4e1731

Remember that link relations predate webfinger by over 5 years.  It's often
better to reuse than to reinvent.

> link relation types or property identifiers are likely to get defined with
> 10 different identifiers, yet carry the same semantics.
>
> Paul
>
> Cc: "Melvin Carvalho" <[email-masked]>; "webfinger" <
> [email-masked]>

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 23:41:13 +0000

Melvin,
>Remember that link relations predate webfinger by over 5 years.  It's 
>often better to reuse than to reinvent.
I agree, though none of these are designed for use in WebFinger.  So, I 
created my own.  You can't point to something 5 years old and declare 
I'm reproducing it because there is some syntax scribbling that has the 
word "name" associated with it.

What I defined in the link above for "name", for example, is somewhere 
between foaf:name and the one related to vcard.  WebFinger has a 
registry for identifiers now.  It would be good to see that get 
populated with useful items, though I would not recommend putting 
everything one might possibly put into a vcard in there.  If a vcard is 
essential, the vcard link relation should be published in a WF JRD and a 
client query that.  However, there are basic things like "name" that are 
very useful, such as when you log into a web site and that site would 
like to display your avatar and name.  The avatar already has a defined 
LR value under webfinger.org.  The person's name does not have a defined 
property identifier anywhere, except the one I specified under 
packetizer.com.

Paul

---

From: Melvin Carvalho <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:01:26 +0200

On 11 October 2013 01:41, Paul E. Jones <[email-masked]> wrote:

> created my own.  You can't point to something 5 years old and declare I'm
> reproducing it because there is some syntax scribbling that has the word
> "name" associated with it.
>
> between foaf:name and the one related to vcard.  WebFinger has a registry
> for identifiers now.  It would be good to see that get populated with
> useful items, though I would not recommend putting everything one might
> possibly put into a vcard in there.  If a vcard is essential, the vcard
> link relation should be published in a WF JRD and a client query that.
> However, there are basic things like "name" that are very useful, such as
> when you log into a web site and that site would like to display
> your avatar and name.  The avatar already has a defined LR value under
> webfinger.org.  The person's name does not have a defined property
> identifier anywhere, except the one I specified under packetizer.com.
>

Ah I see what you've done, you've added some internationalization, ie one
URI for each language?  Apart from that are there any differences to FOAF
(by the way FOAF already has standards for internationalization)

Wouldnt this lead to potentially dozens of new URIs, per term, for example,
for a different one for every language supported?

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:07:12 -0400

Melvin,

See comments below:

On 10/11/2013 11:01 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>     I agree, though none of these are designed for use in WebFinger. 
>     So, I created my own.  You can't point to something 5 years old
>     and declare I'm reproducing it because there is some syntax
>     scribbling that has the word "name" associated with it.
>     What I defined in the link above for "name", for example, is
>     somewhere between foaf:name and the one related to vcard. 
>     WebFinger has a registry for identifiers now.  It would be good to
>     see that get populated with useful items, though I would not
>     recommend putting everything one might possibly put into a vcard
>     in there.  If a vcard is essential, the vcard link relation should
>     be published in a WF JRD and a client query that.  However, there
>     are basic things like "name" that are very useful, such as when
>     you log into a web site and that site would like to display
>     your avatar and name.  The avatar already has a defined LR value
>     under webfinger.org <http://webfinger.org>. The person's name does
>     not have a defined property identifier anywhere, except the one I
>     specified under packetizer.com <http://packetizer.com>.
>
>
> Ah I see what you've done, you've added some internationalization, ie 
> one URI for each language?  Apart from that are there any differences 
> to FOAF (by the way FOAF already has standards for internationalization)
>
> Wouldnt this lead to potentially dozens of new URIs, per term, for 
> example, for a different one for every language supported?

FOAF does not define a set of URI.  Rather, it's XML-based markup. 
WebFinger uses URIs as identifiers.  I don't really care where those 
identifiers are defined, but at present there is no standard property 
identifer in URI form that means "name".

Using the URI fragment to indicate the language does introduce a number 
of distinct URIs, but having the language tag would need to be 
/somewhere/ if we want to allow the language to be specified as part of 
the property.  Unlike XML, we do not have additional attributes we can 
apply.  Arguably, we do not need to specify the language and we allow a 
user to advertise just a single name.  However, I've found it beneficial 
to allow people to advertise names in at least two different character 
sets.  I can't read Chinese, Japanese, or Korean, for example, so 
allowing a western alphabet is helpful to be used in parallel with the 
native alphabet is nice.

Paul

---

From: Will Norris <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:57:09 -0700

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Paul E. Jones <[email-masked]>wrote:

> one URI for each language?  Apart from that are there any differences to
> FOAF (by the way FOAF already has standards for internationalization)
>

http://schema.org/name ?  Of course that doesn't have the language
fragment, though as you point out below, there's an argument it may not be
needed anyway.  /shrug

>
> Using the URI fragment to indicate the language does introduce a number of
> distinct URIs, but having the language tag would need to be *somewhere*if we want to allow the language to be specified as part of the property.
> Unlike XML, we do not have additional attributes we can apply.  Arguably,
> we do not need to specify the language and we allow a user to advertise
> just a single name.  However, I've found it beneficial to allow people to
> advertise names in at least two different character sets.  I can't read
> Chinese, Japanese, or Korean, for example, so allowing a western alphabet
> is helpful to be used in parallel with the native alphabet is nice.
>
> Paul
>
>

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:01:57 -0400

On 10/11/2013 2:57 PM, Will Norris wrote:
>
>     FOAF does not define a set of URI.  Rather, it's XML-based
>     markup.  WebFinger uses URIs as identifiers.  I don't really care
>     where those identifiers are defined, but at present there is no
>     standard property identifer in URI form that means "name".
>
>
> fragment, though as you point out below, there's an argument it may 
> not be needed anyway.  /shrug

Yeah, that would work.  And one cold add a URI fragment to that 
definition easily enough.

These are all too easy to create.  Who will put a stake in the ground 
and declare one property ID is the standard?

Paul

---

From: Mike Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:23:01 +0000

Please permit me to weigh in in favor of re-using existing URIs whenever possible.

                                                                -- Mike

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:02 PM
To: Will Norris
Cc: webfinger; Melvin Carvalho
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Registration of a URN for WebFinger Properties

FOAF does not define a set of URI.  Rather, it's XML-based markup.  WebFinger uses URIs as identifiers.  I don't really care where those identifiers are defined, but at present there is no standard property identifer in URI form that means "name".

http://schema.org/name ?  Of course that doesn't have the language fragment, though as you point out below, there's an argument it may not be needed anyway.  /shrug

Yeah, that would work.  And one cold add a URI fragment to that definition easily enough.

These are all too easy to create.  Who will put a stake in the ground and declare one property ID is the standard?

Paul

---

From: Kingsley Idehen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:02:14 -0400

> identifer in URI form that means "name".

FOAF [1] isn't XML-based markup. It is an RDF model oriented vocabulary 
that's accessible in a variety of formats. Basically, FOAF provides 
modelling for entities and entity relationships in domains such as 
social networks.

URIs are Names.

An HTTP URI can also be used to Name (or Denote) anything, and that 
includes Relations.

An HTTP URL is a type of HTTP URI that Names (or Denotes) a Web Document.

A WebID is a type of HTTP URI that Names (or Denotes) an entity of type 
Agent (Person, Organization, Software, Machine etc..) .

Webfinger enables the use of acct: scheme URIs to Name (or Denote) 
entities of type Person (and possibly other Agent types).

Name->Address Indirection:

When I look-up an HTTP URL that denotes a Document or WebID that denotes 
an Agent my request resolves to data that describes the URI's referent.

The Webfinger protocol enables me  look-up an acct: scheme URI such that 
it resolves to data that describes the URI's referent.

Data Formats:

When I look-up an HTTP URL I more than likely get an HTML representation 
of data.
When I look-up a WebID I will get RDF model based Linked Data in formats 
such as Turtle, JSON-LD, RDFa, RDF/XML etc..
When I lookup an acct: scheme URI (via Webfinger protocol) I will get 
EAV model structured data in JRD or XRD format.

Ultimately, I think its time we all coalesce around the same thing 
(webby structured data), since the host OS (World Wide Web) already has 
all the thorny issues addressed in its core architecture :-)

Links:

1. http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/
2. http://bit.ly/10Y9FL1 -- HTTP URIs as Names for anything has been 
part of the Web's architecture since inception .

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

---

From: Melvin Carvalho <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 22:17:55 +0200

On 11 October 2013 22:02, Kingsley Idehen <[email-masked]> wrote:

> modelling for entities and entity relationships in domains such as social
> networks.
>
> URIs are Names.
>
> When I lookup an acct: scheme URI (via Webfinger protocol) I will get EAV
> model structured data in JRD or XRD format.
>
> Ultimately, I think its time we all coalesce around the same thing (webby
> structured data), since the host OS (World Wide Web) already has all the
> thorny issues addressed in its core architecture :-)
>

+1

> 2. http://bit.ly/10Y9FL1 -- HTTP URIs as Names for anything has been part
> of the Web's architecture since inception .
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/**blog/~kidehen<http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen>
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/**112399767740508618350/about<https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about>
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/**kidehen<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen>
>
>
>
>
>
>

---

From: Melvin Carvalho <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 16:42:18 +0200

> declare one property ID is the standard?

It would be nice if everyone could settle on one term, but the urge to
reinvent is just too strong for many to resist.  Properties on the web are
bottom-up by nature.  There is no "one" standard, and the web is too big
for there ever to be one, in truth there's some overlap between all
vocabs.

WRT to webfinger, as a common pattern, I'd suggest reusing foaf:name as
it's the longest used relation of this type on the web, there must be
around 10-100 million examples of them out there by now.

"http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name"

Of course there's something of a problem in webfinger if you have two names
(eg Bono and Paul Hewson), that's not allowed.