Hello Dan,
The problem I have with using "web" is that there is a "pars pro toto" (or probably rather the other way) problem here. I.e. the Web is defined by *all* the resources identified by an URI/IRI, whereas the element we are trying to name points to just one of them.
Given all the proposals, my opinion is currently about as follows:
[wrap up and ship: +1]
ref/href: +0.8
uri, iri: +0.5
at, about: +0.2
web, internet: +- 0
url: -0.2 (outdated)
Regards, Martin.
At 03:42 05/03/19, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
>* Bjoern Hoehrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-18 19:31+0100]
>> * Dan Brickley wrote:
>> >> I think the question is which of these is meant by "the web":
>>
>> >I encourage Atom to follow the WebArch REC, let's call it (d),
>> >http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#intro
>> >[[
>> >The World Wide Web (WWW, or simply Web) is an information space in which
>> >the items of interest, referred to as resources, are identified by
>> >global identifiers called Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI).
>> >]]
>>
>> Let's ignore that not all IRIs are URIs and let's assume that this is a
>> definition of "Web", are you saying that this definition is equivalent
>> to 'the set of all URIs is the information space "Web"'? If those are
>> not equivalent I am not sure what you are suggesting here.
>
>The definition says, in effect, "The Web is an information space in
>which we use URIs when identifying things". It does not rule out
>other, complementary, identification mechanisms, nor does it equate the
>Web with any specific set of entities. It is an over-arching
>abstraction, not a set of URI-named things, nor the set of URIs. I guess
>it is (and I cringe at the word), a bit like "cyberspace". Nobody really
>expects there to be real answers to "how many things are 'in' cyberspace?",
>since that is over-stretching the metaphor. Same with Web, I think.
>
>Dan
