[uf-discuss] Re: [microformats-discuss] URI's URL's and RDF
kmarks at technorati.com
Tue Oct 25 14:06:53 PDT 2005
On Oct 25, 2005, at 11:32 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
>> On Oct 25, 2005, at 11:14 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> Sure. And if you do usability studies you find that people have
>>> trouble with the "URI" part of that already.
>> Just so I understand: are you complaining about URIs or URLs?
> In W3C terminology, the term "URL" is officially obsolete.
> In Web terminology, there's no difference.
> So I guess I don't understand the question. What do you mean by URI and
> what do you mean by URL?
Here's my take on it, which may be a bit parodic.
RDF really liked URLs. It liked their flexibility so much it decided
everything should be a URL - all 3 parts of the predicate. [thing
However this makes RDF look like a rabbit attack to a parser - every
statement becomes 3 URLs to resolve, making it seem like the acronym
stands for 'Recursive Descent Forever'.
Rather than step back from this, RDF decided to have special kinds of
URLs that weren't meant to really be resolved and locate anything, but
instead to stand as distinguishing tokens for the parser. It called
these URIs. Then just to keep things conceptually clean, it redefined
URLs as a subset of URIs.
Now URL's that don't resolve are very annoying to people who may click
on the links, or parsers who try and resolve them, so RDF decided to
squirrel them away where people couldn't see them, and click on them by
mistake, rather than use an HTML representation.
So, the Campaign for Real URLs here is about going back from abstract
URIs that are really Identifiers to actual Links or Locations that
resolve when clicked on.
More information about the microformats-discuss