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

Dear all,

Let's use everywhere term "URI" as this seems to be the consensus.

There could be a phrase such as:
"In this specification, the term URI is used for the identification of resources. Some URIs might be URL, URN or IRI."

We must specify the URI subset for the DWBP. This can be done without making a reference to URL. Something similar to:

         \__/  \__________________/\_____/ \_______/ \_/
          |              |            |        |      |
       scheme        authority       path    query  fragment

For example, which schemes area allowed: HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, etc.

* URI vs. URL
We could leave this aside, though we must clarify it with the appropriate groups: the point is to clarify, which interpretation (if any) is correct does not matter.

* Future URI
I could not resist quoting :-)

"This document lays out the problem space around standards for URLs and things like them, and proposes some actions to resolve the conflicts."

Got it from Larry's page


-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Wilde [] 
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 2:51 AM
To: Laufer; Annette Greiner
Subject: Re: Data Identification section (was Re: reviewing the BP doc)

hello laufer.

On 2015-08-19 20:37, Laufer wrote:
> Why are some of the group arguing that URI is the same as URL?

i don't think anybody has said it this generally.

> In semantic web we have the idea that any resource can be identified by
> a URI.  An URI is not only http URI.

as makx pointed out so well, and like you're saying, that's *the semweb 
view*, so it's community consensus and more specific than a document 
that tries to set best practices for the web.

generally speaking, an HTTP URI can identify whatever its creator 
decides it identifies, and there is no constraint on how the nature of 
the resource affects the URI. for example, 
is a hash URI but simply refers to a document fragment. you cannot apply 
the semweb rule here, because it's just a web URI.

i guess all that people are asking for right now is to not fight this 
fight here. it has been fought over the past 10 years, since was written and one 
more time proved the point that political handwaving is not something 
that should end up in a spec.

personally, i have used the term URI for the past 10 years since the 
term URL has become obsolete back then. most people still prefer the 
term URL because it is more widely known. annette pointed out that maybe 
we don't have to try to end this 10-year debate, and maybe all we have 
to do is to be consistent in our writing. i think that's a good idea. 
personally, i think using the current spec term URI would be better, but 
that decision probably should just be put to a vote.



erik wilde |  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | |

Received on Thursday, 20 August 2015 15:49:38 UTC