- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:29:56 +0100
- To: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>, Manuel.CARRASCO-BENITEZ@ec.europa.eu
- Cc: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Sorry Annette, on this rare occasion I must disagree with you. http://philarcher.org/foaf.rdf#me is a URI. It is not a URL as it identifies a resource, me, that, like any other physical object, or concept, cannot be obtained over the internet. I do not have a network location. http://philarcher.org/foaf.rdf is a URL, it identifies a resource that does have a network location, i.e. it can be obtained directly over the internet. So there's a hierarchy here of URIs, HTTP URIs and URLs. As evidence, let me quote RFC 3986 (the definition of URIs, https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt), section 1.1.3: 1.1.3. URI, URL, and URN A URI can be further classified as a locator, a name, or both. The term "Uniform Resource Locator" (URL) refers to the subset of URIs that, in addition to identifying a resource, provide a means of locating the resource by describing its primary access mechanism (e.g., its network "location"). RFC 3987 introduces the even more general IRI which allows Unicode characters outside the limited ASCII set. The WG has made it clear that it wants to avoid providing any discussion of the issue. That seems fine to me as it avoids unnecessary confusion, BUT, if we're not going to say something along the lines of "we know all these things are different but for simplicity we'll just use the one term" then we must use the correct term in the correct place. Last week we ended up voting on a proposed resolution: PROPOSED: In general URI should be used in the BP doc, but depending on the context, URL may also be used. This didn't meet with consensus - some people were unsure, Tomas was opposed. Looking at other W3C specs btw, we use IRI pretty much everywhere. See, for example, http://www.w3.org/TR/tabular-metadata/. So the hierarchy is: IRI URI HTTP URI URL Therefore, IMO, the correct course of action in this, a technical specification document, is to use the term IRI except where context dictates that another term be used. Phil. On 13/08/2015 19:54, Annette Greiner wrote: > For our document, URIs and URLs are the same thing, since we are not concerned with entities that don’t have a location on the web. The document uses URI currently. I’m fine with keeping that or using URL instead. Either way, my point is that we don’t need to launch into a discussion of the differences. I’m fine with a footnote referencing RFC 3986 if people feel it’s necessary. > -Annette > -- > Annette Greiner > NERSC Data and Analytics Services > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory > 510-495-2935 > > On Aug 13, 2015, at 2:02 AM, Manuel.CARRASCO-BENITEZ@ec.europa.eu wrote: > >> Annette, >> >> We should just use URL, the subset of URI with a network location mechanism. We *cannot* redefine term such URL and we must just point to the source specifications: we cannot break the existing specifications. >> >> I agree that the document is getting to long and hence the proposition to separate the identification: it is easier to produce and consume. >> >> Regards >> Tomas >> >> >> From: Annette Greiner [amgreiner@lbl.gov] >> >> Sent: 12 August 2015 20:11 >> >> To: Phil Archer >> >> Cc: CARRASCO BENITEZ Manuel (DGT); public-dwbp-wg@w3.org >> >> Subject: Re: Data Identification section (was Re: reviewing the BP doc) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 12, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> * ?R? >> >> URI, URL, URN, IRI. Just use URI everywhere and add something like: >> >> >> >> "In this specification, the term URI is used for the identification schemes: URI, URL, URN and IRI ..." >> >> >> >> This is line with the recommendation in RFC3986 >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-1.1.3 >> >> >> >> " ... Future specifications and related documentation should use the general term "URI" rather than the more restrictive terms "URL" and "URN" ..." >> >> >> >> But >> we *want* to be restrictive. We're only talking about HTTP URIs, we're not talking about URNs, or even URLs. Hence I think we need to say something, no? >> >> >> >> >> Funny, I take the fact that we want to be restricted to discussing URIs as a reason *not* to add a discussion about them vs. URNs or URLs. The fact that we use a term in our document doesn’t mean that we have to define it. It is defined elsewhere in W3C >> space plenty. Our document is already annoyingly long; let’s help readers get to what is helpful information and leave out discussion that is not unique to publishing data on the web. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Annette Greiner >> >> NERSC Data and Analytics Services >> >> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory >> >> 510-495-2935 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- 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 14:30:10 UTC