- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:27:47 -0400
- 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 anything. Kingsley > 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 >>> >>> >> > > > > -- 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 19:28:16 UTC