The difference between URIs and URLs?  I don't believe that "URL" is something that exists any more in any standard, it's all URIs. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

I don't entirely agree with either dogmatic side here, but I do think that we've arrived at an awfully confusing (for developers) environment. Re-reading the various semantic web TAG position papers people keep referencing, I actually don't entirely agree with all of their principles in practice. 

From: Code for Libraries [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alexander Johannesen [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)


Been meaning to jump into this discussion for a while, but I've been
off to an alternative universe and I can't even say it's good to be
back. :) Anwhoo ...

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 03:48, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> You're right, if there were a "web:"  URI scheme, the world would be a
> better place.   But it's not, and the world is worse off for it.

I'm rather confused by this statement. The "web:" URI scheme? The Web
*is* the URI scheme; they are all identifiers to resources (ftp: http:
gopher: https: etc.), and together they make up, the, um, web of
things. What am I missing?

> Back in the old days, URIs (or URLs)  were protocol based.

No, which one do you mean, URIs or URLs?

> The ftp scheme
> was for retrieving documents via ftp. The telnet scheme was for telnet. And
> so on.

Again, have I missed something? This has changed, as opposed to the
good old days?

> A few years later the semantic web was conceived and alot of SW people began
> coining all manner of http URIs that had nothing to do with the http
> protocol.

I've been browsing back and forth this discussion, and couldn't find
much to back this up. What do you mean by this?

> Instead, they should have bit the bullet and coined a new scheme.  They
> didn't, and that's why we're in the mess we're in.

I'm sorry, but "mess"? Did you know the messiness of the web is
probably what made it successful? Not to mention that having URIs be
identifiers *and* have the ability to resolve them is a bonus; they're
identifiers of things (as they've always been, as I'm sure you know
URI stands for Unified Resource Identifier, right? :), as in they
consists of a string of characters used to identify or name a resource
on the Internet. And then, if you so choose, you can use the protocol
level to *resolve* them. Not sure how anyone can consider this to be
bad, though.

Or is this just a misunderstanding of the difference between URIs and URLs?

Kind regards,

 Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ --------