Re: Data Identification section (was Re: reviewing the BP doc)

Hi Phil,

Our messages crossed mid air.

I agree with you. In my e-mail I tried to give a less nuanced example, and
also to quote the same RFC-3986.

Regards,
Joćo Paulo


On 19/8/15, 2:26 PM, "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.
>
>It is a URI, it is not not a URL.
>
>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.
>
>Sorry, I don't like to be adamant about things, I'm always ready to
>learn new things and be corrected. I am often wrong, but on this I am
>confident of being correct.
>
>The use of HTTP does not make a URI a URL. The fact that a URI
>identifies a resource that has a location on the network is what makes
>it a URL, whatever the scheme. So, to correct a mistake I made earlier,
>ftp://example.foo is a URL if it returns whatever is identified by that.
>
>Dereferencing http://philarcher.org/foaf.rdf#me returns
>http://philarcher.org/foaf.rdf that includes information about
>http://philarcher.org/foaf.rdf#me.
>
>It's a nuance, but it is what is at the heart of the difference between
>the two terms.
>
>Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 19/08/2015 17:25, Manuel.CARRASCO-BENITEZ@ec.europa.eu wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>> * Definitions according RFC-3986
>>
>> - URI
>> A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is a compact sequence of characters
>>that identifies an abstract or physical resource.
>>
>> - URL
>> 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").
>>
>>
>> * Definition in RFC-3987
>> Internationalized Resource Identifier (IRI) by extending the syntax of
>>URIs to a much wider repertoire of characters.
>>
>>
>> * Interpretation
>> What makes a URI to be in the subset URL is the providing of means to
>>locate the resource, *not* the nature of the resource.
>>
>> IRI is just and extension of the repertoire of characters. I am also
>>quite familiar with RFC-3987: look at the acknowledgements.
>>
>>
>> * Phil example
>> http://philarcher.org/foaf.rdf#me
>>
>> This URI is a URL because the scheme HTTP provides a mean to locate the
>>resource. That the resource is abstract or physical does not play a role
>>in making a URI a URL.
>>
>>
>> * Verification
>> This *must* be verified, perhaps by contacting the maintainer(s) of
>>RFC-3986. TBL is one of the author, I know Larry Masinter, another
>>author. We should not need clarifications from RFC-3987; I know Martin
>>Duerst.
>>
>>
>> * More
>> We must follow the existing specifications: we cannot *redefine*
>>anything in there, though we can *refine* as long as we do break
>>anything. If one wants to express it as a hierarchy, it has to be
>>properly defined. The same goes for the concept of "HTTP URI" as this is
>>just a subset of URL.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Tomas
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 4:30 PM
>> To: Annette Greiner; CARRASCO BENITEZ Manuel (DGT)
>> Cc: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Data Identification section (was Re: reviewing the BP doc)
>>
>> 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 don¹t have a location on the web. The
>>>document uses URI currently. I¹m fine with keeping that or using URL
>>>instead. Either way, my point is that we don¹t need to launch into a
>>>discussion of the differences. I¹m fine with a footnote referencing RFC
>>>3986 if people feel it¹s 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 doesn¹t mean that we
>>>>have to define it. It is defined elsewhere in W3C
>>>> space plenty. Our document is already annoyingly long; let¹s 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 17:42:43 UTC