backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

Dan Brickley-2
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

John A. Kunze
--- 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.

-John

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

Julian Reschke
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 vs URN, and also URI vs IRI, not to mention Web Adresseses or LEIRIs.

That being said, I really doubt that redefining the term will actually
reduce the confusion. What's needed (IMHO) is stability and consistency.

Best regards, Julian

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

John A. Kunze
--- 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 vs
> 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.

-John

>
> That being said, I really doubt that redefining the term will actually reduce
> the confusion. What's needed (IMHO) is stability and consistency.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

Sandro Hawke
> --- 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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

Ian Hickson
In reply to this post by Dan Brickley-2
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010, Dan Brickley wrote:

>
> 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...

I think that would be a fantastic idea.

--
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

John A. Kunze
In reply to this post by John A. Kunze
--- On Sun, 18 Apr 2010, John A. Kunze wrote:
> Confusion will still reign as long as people mistake "L" for location --
> which this proposal does not address

Sorry, I was very unclear there.  Dan's proposal addresses it squarely.

The "it" I had in mind, for those non-mind-readers on the list, was
people's tendency to become irrational when seeing the word Locator.
And the proposal would definitely help reduce that risk.

-John

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

Roy T. Fielding-2
On Apr 18, 2010, at 4:44 PM, John A. Kunze wrote:
> The "it" I had in mind, for those non-mind-readers on the list, was
> people's tendency to become irrational when seeing the word Locator.
> And the proposal would definitely help reduce that risk.

No, it would just increase the tendency to become irrational for
those folks who don't happen to be using a URL for linking.

I think you all need to find a better hobby.  URI is a full
Internet Standard and the generic syntax spec isn't likely to
change in the next fifty or so years no matter what color you
want to paint this shed.  You would need a couple thousand
vendors to agree to such a change for it to even come close
to overcoming the consensus we spent fifteen years attaining
on the current name.

....Roy

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

Erik Wilde-3
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> No, it would just increase the tendency to become irrational for
> those folks who don't happen to be using a URL for linking.

+1

how would you explain tel:, mailto:, geo:, data:, or tag: with the new
acronym? URIs identify and do not necessarily link, so the new acronym
actually would be a misnomer. personally, whenever people care enough to
ask why i am using the term URI and not URL, they often find it
interesting to learn about the fact that there is a wide variety of URI
schemes and ways in which URIs can be used and are used.

cheers,

dret.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

Sandro Hawke
In reply to this post by John A. Kunze

> > Confusion will still reign as long as people mistake "L" for location --
> > which this proposal does not address
>
> Sorry, I was very unclear there.  Dan's proposal addresses it squarely.
>
> The "it" I had in mind, for those non-mind-readers on the list, was
> people's tendency to become irrational when seeing the word Locator.
> And the proposal would definitely help reduce that risk.

I don't think it's productive to be afraid of other people's potential
irrationality.

It seems simple enough to tell people: If a URI is designed for
dereferencing, it's a URL.  (And since most people only deal with such
URIs, they only deal with URLs.)

Or is the proposal to say that tag: and mailto: and mid: URIs would also
be Uniform Resource Linkers (URLs)?


     -- Sandro

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

Anne van Kesteren-2
In reply to this post by Ian Hickson
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 05:13:31 +0900, Ian Hickson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> 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...
>
> I think that would be a fantastic idea.

Seconded!


--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

Dan Brickley-2
In reply to this post by Roy T. Fielding-2
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Roy T. Fielding <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Apr 18, 2010, at 4:44 PM, John A. Kunze wrote:
>> The "it" I had in mind, for those non-mind-readers on the list, was
>> people's tendency to become irrational when seeing the word Locator.
>> And the proposal would definitely help reduce that risk.
>
> No, it would just increase the tendency to become irrational for
> those folks who don't happen to be using a URL for linking.
>
> I think you all need to find a better hobby.  URI is a full
> Internet Standard and the generic syntax spec isn't likely to
> change in the next fifty or so years no matter what color you
> want to paint this shed.  You would need a couple thousand
> vendors to agree to such a change for it to even come close
> to overcoming the consensus we spent fifteen years attaining
> on the current name.

And how's that working out for you?

We've all been dutifully being saying "URI" for years, around here.
Sometimes even URI Reference, and lately IRI when we're feeling
especially proper. Meanwhile the original name is still very heavily
used, to understate the situation. In anything but the most
standards-addled settings, the single basic concept of URI *still*
needs a special introduction, and solely because it is named URI and
not URL. 15 years into the great "URI" experiment, 20 years into the
Web, we can't mention the name of it's fundamental technology without
having to explain that "it's a bit like an URL". This creates a
needless barrier between those who are building Web technology, and
those who use it.

What I am suggesting does not ask for any redefinition of URI, it's
specification, name or syntax. It is just a restoration to greater
respectability of the colloquial name. We lack, and I believe we need,
a single simple high level term for these things; something that
understood by doctors, journalists, artists, engineers, parents,
grandparents, children and puppies. Those who care will continue to
check the detail and use the real technical terms, and they will often
need language that carefully distinguishes IRIs from URIs. But for
most mainstream use, we lack an umbrella term and have (due to the URN
vs URI perma-debate) lost the ability to talk clearly about
UR-Locators. I am suggesting we say "if it's a URI, a URI Reference,
or an IRI, then ... sure, it's what we now casually call an URL". The
suggestion to change the acronym expansion could live or die
separately, but it does emphasise the core feature of the Web.

What do you prefer as the most over-arching and inclusive term to use
in everyday discourse?

cheers,

Dan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

Roy T. Fielding-2
On Apr 18, 2010, at 10:53 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Roy T. Fielding <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Apr 18, 2010, at 4:44 PM, John A. Kunze wrote:
>>> The "it" I had in mind, for those non-mind-readers on the list, was
>>> people's tendency to become irrational when seeing the word Locator.
>>> And the proposal would definitely help reduce that risk.
>>
>> No, it would just increase the tendency to become irrational for
>> those folks who don't happen to be using a URL for linking.
>>
>> I think you all need to find a better hobby.  URI is a full
>> Internet Standard and the generic syntax spec isn't likely to
>> change in the next fifty or so years no matter what color you
>> want to paint this shed.  You would need a couple thousand
>> vendors to agree to such a change for it to even come close
>> to overcoming the consensus we spent fifteen years attaining
>> on the current name.
>
> And how's that working out for you?

Absolutely fine.

> We've all been dutifully being saying "URI" for years, around here.
> Sometimes even URI Reference, and lately IRI when we're feeling
> especially proper. Meanwhile the original name is still very heavily
> used, to understate the situation. In anything but the most
> standards-addled settings, the single basic concept of URI *still*
> needs a special introduction, and solely because it is named URI and
> not URL. 15 years into the great "URI" experiment, 20 years into the
> Web, we can't mention the name of it's fundamental technology without
> having to explain that "it's a bit like an URL". This creates a
> needless barrier between those who are building Web technology, and
> those who use it.

No, it doesn't.  People who need to know the difference already know it.
It is simply IRRELEVANT how many people still use the term URL since
that term encompasses the exact same set as URI.  It always has.
If I am talking to a non-technical person, I will talk about URI
(the standard) and "Web addresses" (browsing) and "references"
(the stuff you type into the address bar or href).

The only problem we've had recently is folks who claim an arbitrary
reference string is a URL, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever
no matter what the acronym spells.  "" is not a URL/URI/IRI.  It might
be a URI reference or an IRI reference.

> What I am suggesting does not ask for any redefinition of URI, it's
> specification, name or syntax. It is just a restoration to greater
> respectability of the colloquial name. We lack, and I believe we need,
> a single simple high level term for these things; something that
> understood by doctors, journalists, artists, engineers, parents,
> grandparents, children and puppies. Those who care will continue to
> check the detail and use the real technical terms, and they will often
> need language that carefully distinguishes IRIs from URIs. But for
> most mainstream use, we lack an umbrella term and have (due to the URN
> vs URI perma-debate) lost the ability to talk clearly about
> UR-Locators. I am suggesting we say "if it's a URI, a URI Reference,
> or an IRI, then ... sure, it's what we now casually call an URL". The
> suggestion to change the acronym expansion could live or die
> separately, but it does emphasise the core feature of the Web.

There is no need to talk clearly about UR-Locators. All URNs are locators.
Being able to use an identifier for locating something has nothing to do
with its syntax.  It has to do with the availability of a
resolution/retrieval mechanism.  Changing the name is not going to
change the desire of some people to keep rehashing that debate --
it will just introduce yet more ambiguity into the term.

> What do you prefer as the most over-arching and inclusive term to use
> in everyday discourse?

URI (for output) and reference (for input).

....Roy

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

Danny Ayers
In reply to this post by Dan Brickley-2
+1

On 18 April 2010 11:52, Dan Brickley <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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
>
>



--
http://danny.ayers.name

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

Danny Ayers
In reply to this post by Roy T. Fielding-2
On 19 April 2010 08:18, Roy T. Fielding <[hidden email]> wrote:


>>> I think you all need to find a better hobby.

We all do :)

URI is a full
>>> Internet Standard and the generic syntax spec isn't likely to
>>> change in the next fifty or so years no matter what color you
>>> want to paint this shed.  You would need a couple thousand
>>> vendors to agree to such a change for it to even come close
>>> to overcoming the consensus we spent fifteen years attaining
>>> on the current name.

I'm damn sure danbri isn't shed painting.


>> We've all been dutifully being saying "URI" for years, around here.

Around where? In the outside world people say URL all the time.

> It is simply IRRELEVANT how many people still use the term URL since
> that term encompasses the exact same set as URI.  It always has.
> If I am talking to a non-technical person, I will talk about URI
> (the standard) and "Web addresses" (browsing) and "references"
> (the stuff you type into the address bar or href).

I don't disagree, but there *is* a huge set of people - developers,
code monkeys - that don't recognise URI (let alone IRI).

> The only problem we've had recently is folks who claim an arbitrary
> reference string is a URL, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever
> no matter what the acronym spells.  "" is not a URL/URI/IRI.  It might
> be a URI reference or an IRI reference.

No, the problems we have are usually to do with people confusing an
identifier of a thing and the identifier of a reference to a thing.

> There is no need to talk clearly about UR-Locators. All URNs are locators.

How so?
urn:roy doesn't locate you, whereas http://roy might

> Being able to use an identifier for locating something has nothing to do
> with its syntax.  It has to do with the availability of a
> resolution/retrieval mechanism.  Changing the name is not going to
> change the desire of some people to keep rehashing that debate --
> it will just introduce yet more ambiguity into the term.

I do believe there is value in acknowledging the lowest common
denominator, as long as (as you say) the folks that need to know have
the specs at hand.

>> What do you prefer as the most over-arching and inclusive term to use
>> in everyday discourse?
>
> URI (for output) and reference (for input).

That is a nice description.

Cheers,
Danny.

--
http://danny.ayers.name

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

ray denenberg
In reply to this post by Julian Reschke
> I think everybody agrees that there's a lot of confusion about URI vs URL
> vs URN, and also URI vs IRI, not to mention Web Adresseses or LEIRIs.

Leaving aside URIs vs. URLs, and URIs vs. IRIs ....

I'm sorry but people who are confused about URNs don't listen.

URIs have schemes.  Like 'http', you know?   'urn' is one of those.  That's
it, end of story for URN.

Just venting because I get tired of hearing that people get confused about
URNs. They wouldn't, if they would listen.

--Ray


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

Mark Davis ☕
In reply to this post by Anne van Kesteren-2
I think this is a great idea, and high time. For non-mavens, there should be one general term for any of the current set of {URI, URL, URN, URI, IRI}, and all of the other future flavors that nobody outside of a small community can keep straight.

And that general term should be the one term that everyone (not just mavens) is familiar with: URL.

Mark

— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —


On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 20:01, Anne van Kesteren <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 05:13:31 +0900, Ian Hickson <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010, Dan Brickley wrote:
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...

I think that would be a fantastic idea.

Seconded!


--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

Noah Mendelsohn
In reply to this post by Danny Ayers
I'm more or less with Roy on this, I think.  The sad fact is that, IMO,
neither the status quo nor any of these proposals will be truly
evocative for the average non-technical user of the Web.  In my
experience, many such people are intimidated by any of the three letter
initialisms we're discussing, including URL (regardless of how
rationalized).

That being the case, I think we might as well stick with the terminology
that has, as Roy says, been negotiated with some care among those who
prepared the current normative specifications.  If someone wants to
promote a bit more widely some truly suggestive term (Web address
strikes me as imperfect, but probably the best of the lot), well maybe.
  Just rotating the preferences among 3 letter techy-codes every decade
or so seems to me a losing proposition.  YMMV.

Noah

Danny Ayers wrote:

> +1
>
> On 18 April 2010 11:52, Dan Brickley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

Dan Brickley-2
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Noah Mendelsohn <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm more or less with Roy on this, I think.  The sad fact is that, IMO,
> neither the status quo nor any of these proposals will be truly evocative
> for the average non-technical user of the Web.  In my experience, many such
> people are intimidated by any of the three letter initialisms we're
> discussing, including URL (regardless of how rationalized).

Ok, well I put the idea out there. A lot of people liked it, but a few
who I have great respect for didn't, so I'm going to go quiet for a
while and experiment with talking about URI and URL to people over the
next year. I'll be back in 2011 if I'm still in dispair about wider
adoption of 'URI', but I won't stir things up any more for more!

> That being the case, I think we might as well stick with the terminology
> that has, as Roy says, been negotiated with some care among those who
> prepared the current normative specifications.  If someone wants to promote
> a bit more widely some truly suggestive term (Web address strikes me as
> imperfect, but probably the best of the lot), well maybe.  Just rotating the
> preferences among 3 letter techy-codes every decade or so seems to me a
> losing proposition.  YMMV.

I like 'Web address', I think it'll take a bit of concerted effort to
persuade everyone that physical things, people etc can also have them,
but if that's the chosen terminology I'll have a go :)

...oooOO( I still don't know whether I'm supposed to say IRI amongst
civilians...)

cheers,

Dan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

=JeffH-4
In reply to this post by Dan Brickley-2
 > I'm more or less with Roy on this, I think.  The sad fact is that, IMO,
 > neither the status quo nor any of these proposals will be truly
 > evocative for the average non-technical user of the Web.  In my
 > experience, many such people are intimidated by any of the three letter
 > initialisms we're discussing, including URL (regardless of how
 > rationalized).
 >
 > That being the case, I think we might as well stick with the terminology
 > that has, as Roy says, been negotiated with some care among those who
 > prepared the current normative specifications.  If someone wants to
 > promote a bit more widely some truly suggestive term (Web address
 > strikes me as imperfect, but probably the best of the lot), well maybe.
 >   Just rotating the preferences among 3 letter techy-codes every decade
 > or so seems to me a losing proposition.  YMMV.

strongly +1

=JeffH



12