Transition Request Dec 2012
We propose to publish the following three SPARQL documents as Proposed Recommendations (PR). These documents were advanced to Candidate Recommendation (CR) when the other SPARQL documents advanced to PR, skipping CR two months ago. At the time, there was insufficient implementation experience to exit CR for these three documents, but that experience has now been gathered. No substantial changes have been made.
For each document, in this section, we provide information in the following form: (proposed status) for (title) (Latest TR Version URL) (Current Editor's draft URL) (URL of Resolution to Publish) (Abstract) PR for "SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes" http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment/ http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/entailment/ http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-12-11#resolution_6 SPARQL is a query language and a protocol for data that is stored natively as RDF or viewed as RDF via middleware. The main mechanism for computing query results in SPARQL is subgraph matching: RDF triples in both the queried RDF data and the query pattern are interpreted as nodes and edges of directed graphs, and the resulting query graph is matched to the data graph using variables as wild cards. Various W3C standards, including RDF and OWL, provide semantic interpretations for RDF graphs that allow additional RDF statements to be inferred from explicitly given assertions. Many applications that rely on these semantics require a query language such as SPARQL, but in order to use SPARQL, basic graph pattern matching has to be defined using semantic entailment relations instead of explicitly given graph structures. There are different possible ways of defining a basic graph pattern matching extension for an entailment relation. This document specifies one such way for a range of standard semantic web entailment relations. Such extensions of the SPARQL semantics are called entailment regimes within this document. An entailment regime defines not only which entailment relation is used, but also which queries and graphs are well-formed for the regime, how the entailment is used (since there are potentially different meaningful ways to use the same entailment relation), and what kinds of errors can arise. The entailment relations used in this document are standard entailment relations in the semantic web: RDF entailment, RDFS entailment, D-entailment, OWL Direct and RDF-Based Semantics entailment, and RIF Core entailment. PR for "SPARQL 1.1 Protocol" http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-protocol/ http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/protocol-1.1/ http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-12-11#resolution_5 The SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language (SPARQL) is a query language and protocol for RDF. This document specifies the SPARQL Protocol; it describes a means for conveying SPARQL queries and updates to a SPARQL processing service and returning the results via HTTP to the entity that requested them. This protocol was developed by the W3C SPARQL Working Group, part of the Semantic Web Activity as described in the activity statement . PR for "SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store HTTP Protocol" http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-http-rdf-update/ http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/ http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-12-11#resolution_7 This document describes the use of HTTP operations for the purpose of managing a collection of RDF graphs. This interface is an alternative to the SPARQL 1.1 Update protocol. Most of the operations defined here can be performed using that interface, but for some clients or servers, this interface may be easier to implement or work with. This specification may serve as a non-normative suggestion for HTTP operations on RDF graphs which are managed outside of a SPARQL 1.1 graph store.
2 Status Sections, Changes since Last Call
Before publication, the status sections for all the documents will changed to be the standard boilerplate for the given status level, plus text about the changes since the last publication, specifically:
Entailment Regimes - removed "at risk" notices, keeping all the "at risk" text.
Protocol - Fixed typo when referencing the application/x-www-form-urlencoded media type.
Graph Store HTTP Protocol - no changes
3 Satisfies Group's Requirements
The requirements have not changed since the previous transition. None of the many reviews have claimed that the documents fail to satisfy the group's requirements.
The charter deliverables are met by the group's publications, along with the test suite website.
No changes since last Transition, in which no dependency problems were identified.
5 Issues Formally Addressed
There have been no formal objections.
The group maintains a table of implementations and test results (snapshot 19 December 2012). As of this writing, results (passing rif01 rif03 rif04 rif05 and rif06) have not yet been incorporated into that table.
The group approved the exit criteria of have each approved test passed by two or more implementations.
8 Patent Disclosures