[uf-discuss] URIs vs URLs (reference)

[Dr. Ernie Prabhakar]

Hi Danny,

On Oct 25, 2005, at 3:23 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:

> On 10/25/05, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar <drernie at opendarwin.org> wrote:
>
>> Hmm, I read that as agreeing with my understanding, which matches the
>> "contemporary" view:
>
>>> The W3C and IETF should jointly develop and endorse a model for
>>> URIs, URLs and URNs consistent with the '"Contemporary View"
>
> Sorry, I don't actually know what you mean by the contemporary view.
> As a spec-tart I'd go with what the RFCs say. What do you mean?
> (Direct question #1)

Did you read the RFC? I mean what the RFCs say it means:

http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/#contemporary
> according to the contemporary view, the term "URL" does not refer  
> to a formal partition of URI space; rather, URL is a useful but  
> informal concept: a URL is a type of URI that identifies a resource  
> via a representation of its primary access mechanism (e.g., its  
> network "location"), rather than by some other attributes it may have.

The RFC first defines the contemporary view, then they recommend  
formally affirming it.

> So, direct question #2: how do you see URL being advantageous?

I know what they mean: they refer to what I get when I follow that  
link.  They have a concrete realization, not just an abstract  
idealization.  It avoids all sorts of nasty epistemic hairballs;  
plus, in case of doubt I can just follow the darn link and get *some*  
clue...

Is it a huge deal?  Maybe not, but its a great convenience.

--- Ernie P.
------------
Ernest N. Prabhakar, Ph.D. <drernie at opendarwin.org>
Ex-Physicist, Marketing Weenie, and Dilettante Hacker
Probe-Hacker blog: http://www.opendarwin.org/~drernie/