Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

> --- On Sun, 18 Apr 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > On 18.04.2010 20:02, John A. Kunze wrote:
> >> --- On Sun, 18 Apr 2010, Dan Brickley wrote:
> >>> ... I propose a simple-minded fix: restore 'URL' as the most
> >>> general term for Web identifiers,
> >> 
> >> Yep. I've always avoided the word "URI" except when politics required it.
> >> 
> >>> and re-interpret 'URL' as "Universal Resource Linker".
> >> 
> >> Not bad at all. Think how much time and treasure would have been saved
> >> if the word "Locator" (too close to "location") hadn't been part of URL.
> >
> > I think everybody agrees that there's a lot of confusion about URI vs URL v
> s 
> > URN, and also URI vs IRI, not to mention Web Adresseses or LEIRIs.
> 
> I wouldn't expect the change to clear things up instantly, but to set the
> stage for sensible deprecation of unnecessary terms such as URI and URN.
> 
> Confusion will still reign as long as people mistake "L" for location --
> which this proposal does not address -- but reduction of terminology
> seems like a good start.

danbri, awkwardly but understandably, started this thread on two
different sets of mailing lists.  On the other set I expressed my
conviction that URL is a perfectly good term to be using, and doesn't
need any updating [1].  The terms URI, URN, and IRI serve certain
purposes in certain specs, and I wouldn't banish them from RFCs or W3C
TRs, but I strongly advise everyone communicating about Linked Data to
learn to say "URL" when you might be tempted to use the other UR* terms,
for the reasons danbri so clearly provides.

      -- Sandro



[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Apr/0231.html

Received on Sunday, 18 April 2010 19:53:49 UTC