Re: Fwd: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

Why 'URL' when it is pretty clearly defined and still significant
portion of web users don't understand it.

I'd rather embrace 'web address' - even non-tech users would understand
that.

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
>