- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:42:09 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
Wonder what would happen if we just called them "Links"? Seems to be pretty unambiguous, if I say "Link" to TimBL or my Mum they both know what I mean, and it appears to produce the desired mental picture when used. Link, short for HyperLink - Link as in Linked Data. Keep the URI/URL/IRI for those who need to know the exact syntax of a Link. ? 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 > > >
Received on Sunday, 18 April 2010 13:42:48 UTC