Jiří Procházka wrote:
Why 'URL' when it is pretty clearly defined and still significant
portion of web users don't understand it.
No, most Web Users actually understand what a URL is.
They don't know what a Generic HTTP URI is. And simply stating: a URL
is a kind of URI doesn't cut it at all. Stating a URN is a kind of URI
doesn't cut it at all. Stating that you can use an HTTP scheme URI as a
Naming mechanism is what a Generic HTTP scheme URI is about, but this
isn't something many users are slightly aware of etc..
I'd rather embrace 'web address' - even non-tech users would understand
that.
Uniform Resource Locator, is something Web user understand, the grok the
"Locator" or "Address" concept. As per comment above, they don't grok
the use of a Generic HTTP scheme URI for Resolvable Names.
They don't grok what Names Resolve to etc..
This is why all roads ulimately lead to groking a uniform or universal
(or both) data model, which is where EAV comes into play.
BTW -- if you drill down to the history of RDF (let say the 1998
scientific america paper), then take a deep look at the background of
Ora Lassila [1], you would be quite surprised as to what you would find
re. both LISP and EAV model :-)
Links:
1. http://www.lassila.org/
Kingsley
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 <dan...@danbri.org>
Date: Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM
Subject: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker
To: u...@w3.org
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <ti...@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
