Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

On 18 Apr 2010, at 11:18, 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?

For the linked data movement, that seems like a good idea, definitively.
The fact that RDF is defined around IRIs is great, because it means that we can
be compatible with any future improvements. But we don't have to talk at that level
of abstraction every day.

Henry

> 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 10:26:26 UTC