W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Fwd: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:26:28 -0400
Message-ID: <4BCB5CE4.1090503@openlinksw.com>
To: Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>
CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
Jiří Procházka wrote:
> Why 'URL' when it is pretty clearly defined and still significant
> portion of web users don't understand it.

No, most Web Users actually understand what a URL is.

They don't know what a Generic HTTP URI is.  And simply stating: a URL 
is a kind of URI doesn't cut it at all. Stating a URN is a kind of URI 
doesn't cut it at all. Stating that you can use an HTTP scheme URI as a 
Naming mechanism is what a Generic HTTP scheme URI is about, but this 
isn't something many users are slightly aware of etc..
> I'd rather embrace 'web address' - even non-tech users would understand
> that.

Uniform Resource Locator, is something Web user understand, the grok the 
"Locator" or "Address" concept. As per comment above, they don't grok 
the use of a Generic HTTP scheme URI for Resolvable Names.

They don't grok what Names Resolve to etc..

This is why all roads ulimately lead to groking a uniform or universal 
(or both) data model, which is where EAV comes into play.

BTW -- if you drill down to the history of RDF (let say the 1998 
scientific america paper), then take a deep look at the background of 
Ora Lassila [1], you would be quite surprised as to what you would find 
re. both LISP and EAV model :-)


1. http://www.lassila.org/

> Best,
> Jiri Prochazka
> On 04/18/2010 12:18 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> So - I'm serious. The term 'URI' has never really worked as something
>> most Web users encounter and understand.
>> For RDF, SemWeb and linked data efforts, this is a problem as our data
>> model is built around URIs.
>> If 'URL' can be brought back from limbo as a credible technical term,
>> and rebranded around the concept of 'linkage', I think it'll go a long
>> way towards explaining what we're up to with RDF.
>> Thoughts?
>> Dan
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
>> Date: Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM
>> Subject: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker
>> To: uri@w3.org
>> Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
>> I'll keep this short. The official term for Web identifiers, URI,
>> isn't widely known or understood. The I18N-friendly variant IRI
>> confuses many (are we all supposed to migrate to use it; or just in
>> our specs?), while the most widely used, understood and (for many)
>> easiest to pronounce, 'URL' (for Uniform Resource Locator) has been
>> relegated to 'archaic form' status. At the slightest provocation this
>> community dissapears down the rathole of URI-versus-URN, and until
>> this all settles down we are left with an uncomfortable disconnect
>> between how those in-the-know talk about Web identifiers, and those
>> many others who merely use it.
>> As of yesterday, I've been asked "but what is a URI?" one too many
>> times. I propose a simple-minded fix: restore 'URL' as the most
>> general term for Web identifiers, and re-interpret 'URL' as "Universal
>> Resource Linker". Most people won't care, but if they investigate,
>> they'll find out about the re-naming. This approach avoids URN vs URI
>> kinds of distinction, scores 2 out of 3 for use of intelligible words,
>> and is equally appropriate to classic browser/HTML, SemWeb and other
>> technical uses. What's not to like? The Web is all about links, and
>> urls are how we make them...
>> cheers,
>> Dan



Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen 
Received on Sunday, 18 April 2010 19:26:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:05 UTC