- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 07:16:39 -0400
- To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "'Dare Obasanjo'" <dareo@microsoft.com>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
David Orchard wrote: > I observe that for years people using the web called the http://... thingy a > URL. And then to ensure the sameness of syntax between URNs and URLs, the > use of URIs was done. At some point, I can't say when, people started using the strings that are called "URL"s to name things. My position has been all along that the so-called conflation of locating and naming is the prime characteristic of the Web itself -- as manifest my URIs/URLs. In any case I observe that in common everyday use people who use the Web use these strings to both identify or name something and locate or retrieve a description of that thing. Which acronym you use is irrelevent. I state this from observation of how people use the Web today, and anyone is free to observe this by reading any number of emails, web pages, IRC logs or other communications between people using the Web. I've just read the email you reference from '94: [[ Nevertheless, we did NOT discard the URI syntax -- we just changed its name to URL. Thus, all things which fall under the WWW banner of URI also fall under the IETF banner of URL, even though it may sound weird to talk about a URN as a Locator. ]] The key point is that URIs and URLs are the same _both_ locators and names. Let's interpret any of {URL,URN,URL} as naming something, and locating a description of that thing. > Seems like urn:... thingies are urns, and everything > else is a locator. As Roy said in '94 [1], URIs are just a syntax that > combines URLs and URNs particularly for comparison purposes. There didn't > seem to be any notion at the time of combination that Identity notions > manifested themselves merely by having a common syntax. > I interpret the above paragraph differently, but we can always argue about history, the definitions and spelling of words in Old English may or may not have some bearing on the definition and spelling of words in modern English -- yet when the population changes the meaning or usage of a word, perhaps on a whim, the meaning or usage of the word changes. Published dictionaries are always playing catch-up to the actual language as it is practiced. > Cheers, > Dave > > [1] http://www.acl.lanl.gov/URI/archive/uri-94q4.messages/0028.html > Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 07:35:20 UTC