- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:26:28 -0400
- To: Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>
- CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
Jiří Procházka wrote: > Why 'URL' when it is pretty clearly defined and still significant > portion of web users don't understand it. > No, most Web Users actually understand what a URL is. They don't know what a Generic HTTP URI is. And simply stating: a URL is a kind of URI doesn't cut it at all. Stating a URN is a kind of URI doesn't cut it at all. Stating that you can use an HTTP scheme URI as a Naming mechanism is what a Generic HTTP scheme URI is about, but this isn't something many users are slightly aware of etc.. > I'd rather embrace 'web address' - even non-tech users would understand > that. > Uniform Resource Locator, is something Web user understand, the grok the "Locator" or "Address" concept. As per comment above, they don't grok the use of a Generic HTTP scheme URI for Resolvable Names. They don't grok what Names Resolve to etc.. This is why all roads ulimately lead to groking a uniform or universal (or both) data model, which is where EAV comes into play. BTW -- if you drill down to the history of RDF (let say the 1998 scientific america paper), then take a deep look at the background of Ora Lassila [1], you would be quite surprised as to what you would find re. both LISP and EAV model :-) Links: 1. http://www.lassila.org/ Kingsley > 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 >> >> > > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Sunday, 18 April 2010 19:26:56 UTC