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,
Entity (Data Object, Data Item) Descriptor Documents reside at
locations/addresses (URLs). The "Resource" conflation is a nightmare
since is purer Semantic Web parlance I would frame my first sentence as:
Resource Descriptor Documents reside at locations/addresses, and the
"Referents" of these documents are "Resources" that are "Identified"
using HTTP scheme based "Identifiers" as "Names".
Henry Story has done a phenomenal job of sticking to URLs when
explaining FOAF+SSL, the "Referent" comes into scope via the Descriptor
Document (e.g., FOAF Profile) rather than the other way round.
To simply decide we drop "URL" from the Web's vocabulary is yet another
huge mistake IMHO. Another major crack in the whole "comprehension pot"
re. Linked Data and related matters.
When you look at OData and GData what do you see in reality? IMHO.
Descriptor Documents constructed using Atom Feed Formats with varying
degrees of fidelity re. delineation between the actual Descriptor
Document and its Referent(s). Thus, in the worst case you end up in a
situation where OData and GData folks (via constructive communications
with these communities) only need to address EAV fidelity rather than
overhaul their efforts entirely (which is what RDF the format ultimately
entails).
Kingsley
Dan
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dan Brickley <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM
Subject: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker
To: [email protected]
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <[email protected]>
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
