File talk:URI Venn Diagram.svg

Confusing and wrong

I wonder how this confusing and wrong diagram could survive for years in several Wikipedia articles. First the color has no significance but only blurs the meaning of the image. Second it is no Venn diagram at all, because its contains this fuzzy dotted lines. Even if you read the dotted lines as simple lines, the diagram is wrong, because URN and URL are disjoint. -- JakobVoss (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the first two points but object to the third point. URN and URL are not disjoint. Please be refered to RFC 3986, section 1.1.3, which states:

An individual scheme does not have to be classified as being just one of "name" or "locator". Instances of URIs from any given scheme may have the characteristics of names or locators or both, often depending on the persistence and care in the assignment of identifiers by the naming authority, rather than on any quality of the scheme. Future specifications and related documentation should use the general term "URI" rather than the more restrictive terms "URL" and "URN" [RFC3305].

Regarding the other two points I refer to this discussion which led to this edit that substituted this diagram at en-wp by File:URI Euler Diagram no lone URIs.svg that no longer claims to be a Venn diagram or that there exists URIs that are neither URLs nor URNs. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The "Euler" diagram (I doubt that this is) still contains this fuzzy area between URN and URL. Either there are URI that can be both, or there are not. Moreover the statement in RFC 3986 says that we should not use URI or URL at all, so if you follow this RFC, the diagram is also wrong. If URN in the diagram refers to the urn: namespace, the issue may be different. In summary the diagram only depicts the statement "URL and URI are kinds of URI and both are somehow related" -- JakobVoss (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)