W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Fwd: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:27:47 -0400
Message-ID: <4BCB5D33.9050004@openlinksw.com>
To: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
John Erickson wrote:
> +1 to Danbri's emphasis on LINKs, because at the end of the day
> linking is what it's all about!

Of course, it's about LINKs.

EAV enables you to use LINKs to traverse the structured description of 

> John
> 2010/4/18 Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>:
>> 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



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 19:28:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:17 UTC