- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:34:58 +0100
- To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Cc: "Manuel.CARRASCO-BENITEZ@ec.europa.eu" <Manuel.CARRASCO-BENITEZ@ec.europa.eu>, "amgreiner@lbl.gov" <amgreiner@lbl.gov>, "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
On 19/08/2015 21:11, Erik Wilde wrote: > hello phil. > >> On Aug 19, 2015, at 13:26, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote: >> If http://philarcher.org/foaf.rdf#me were a URL you'd have me personally popping out of your screen every time you dereferenced it. > > that makes as much sense as saying that because some store *uses HTTP URIs* to identify real-world objects, that turns browsers into teleportation devices. I think you misread me. Of course it's absurd, sorry that wasn't obvious from my wording. > > you cannot redefine what an HTTP URI identifies, no matter how much you want to. the community has agreed to use some kinds of URI references (different from URIs!) in certain ways, but that does not change the way how URIs or HTTP operate. I don't think I am redefining anything. > >> It is a URI, it is not not a URL. > > it's a URI reference, and since it's using HTTP, it also is a URL reference. > >> I am not redefining anything, I am using the definitions as written in the specs. We have both quoted the same text from the same source and come to different conclusions. > > you are using community conventions to read nuances into the foundation specs that aren't there. simply put yourself into the shoes of somebody knowing the specs, but not the community conventions. > >> The use of HTTP does not make a URI a URL. > > it does. how would you even distinguish HTTP URLs from "HTTP non-URLs"? knowing the intent of the entity that minted that identifier? and if so, what's the protocol for discovering that intent? Well, all URIs are dumb strings so you don't know whether it's a URI or a URL until you dereference it and see what comes back. > >> The fact that a URI identifies a resource that has a location on the network is what makes it a URL, whatever the scheme. > > yes, and if you provide a HTTP, you provide that location. That's not how I understand it. You provide a network location where you can look it up. You might get the thing itself or you might get information about it. You don't know which until you dereference. your convention is hidden on the wider web and plays no role at that level. That's certainly true. > >> Dereferencing http://philarcher.org/foaf.rdf#me returns http://philarcher.org/foaf.rdf that includes information about http://philarcher.org/foaf.rdf#me. > > yes, and on the web level, that's an HTTP resource and the URI refrence identified a fragment of it. anything beyond that is community consensus and not part of any web standards. All standards are community consensus and we could go on with this forever, no doubt soon descending into another round of HR14 discussions (at which point I'll set a filter to delete all future messages in the thread). All we're deciding here is whether in the BP doc it is better to use the term IRI, URI or URL. My preference is IRI unless there is a specific reason to use one of the others. Phil. -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Wednesday, 19 August 2015 20:35:11 UTC