Last Call: HTML+RDFa 1.1

The W3C RDFa Working Group  has published a Last Call Working Draft of HTML+RDFa 1.1. This specification defines rules and guidelines for adapting the RDFa Core 1.1 and RDFa Lite 1.1 specifications for use in HTML5 and XHTML5. The rules defined in this specification not only apply to HTML5 documents in non-XML and XML mode, but also to HTML4 and XHTML documents interpreted through the HTML5 parsing rules. Comments are welcome through 28 February.

2nd Edition of the RIF Recommendation published

W3C published the Second Edition of the Rule Interchange Format (RIF). RIF was developed through a joint effort of members of the Business Rules, Semantic Web, and Logic Programming communities. It allows rules systems to be connected together for highly-structured knowledge to be accurately exchanged as explained in RIF Use Cases and Requirements. The Second Edition includes editorial improvements and a number of small corrections to the original specification, along with a new RIF Primer.

The six new standards are:

Along with these standards, the RIF Working Group published today six related documents: RIF Overview (Second Edition),RIF Use Cases and Requirements (Second Edition)RIF Test Cases (Second Edition)OWL 2 RL in RIF (Second Edition)RIF Combination with XML data (Second Edition), and RIF In RDF (Second Edition).

Thanks – PROV Implementers

Just a couple of months ago, the PROV Working Group published four candidate recommendations and asked for the community to report its implementation and usage of PROV. We asked you to tell us what you were doing with PROV by the end of January (only a month &  a half) and, wow!, you really came through.

We have reports of 36 applications using PROV, 12 extensions of PROV-O and 5 datasets using PROV. People are using PROV for applications ranging from statistics to earth science. There are implementations in Python, Java, PHP,  and prolog.  Based on these reports, we are busy putting together an implementation report.

But… we know there are more implementations out there. If you haven’t reported your usage, in particular in datasets, there’s still time to get included in our report. So fill out one of our surveys.

To those who already reported, thanks.

Last SPARQL 1.1. Proposed Recommendations Published

The W3C SPARQL Working Group has published today a set of three documents, advancing most of SPARQL 1.1 to Proposed Recommendation. This publication completes the set of Proposed Recommendations for SPARQL 1.1, after the first series published in November 2012. Building on the success of SPARQL 1.0, SPARQL 1.1 is a full-featured standard system for working with RDF data, including a query/update language, two HTTP protocols (one full-featured, one using basic HTTP verbs), three result formats, and other features which allow SPARQL endpoints to be combined and work together. Most features of SPARQL 1.1 have already been implemented by a range of SPARQL suppliers, as shown in our table of implementations and test results.

The three Proposed Recommendations published today are:

New Version of the RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax Draft Published

The W3C RDF Working Group has published a Working Draft of RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax. RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax defines an abstract syntax (a data model) which serves to link all RDF-based languages and specifications. The abstract syntax has two key data structures: RDF graphs are sets of subject-predicate-object triples, where the elements may be IRIs, blank nodes, or datatyped literals. They are used to express descriptions of resources. RDF datasets are used to organize collections of RDF graphs, and comprise a default graph and zero or more named graphs. This document also introduces key concepts and terminology, and discusses datatyping and the handling of fragment identifiers in IRIs within RDF graphs.

Registered Organization Vocabulary Draft Published

The W3C Government Linked Data Working Group has published the First Public Working Draft of Registered Organization Vocabulary. This is a vocabulary for describing organizations that have gained legal entity status through a formal registration process, typically in a national or regional register. It focuses solely on such organizations and excludes natural persons, virtual organizations and other types of legal entity or ‘agent’ that are able to act. It should be seen as a specialization of the more flexible and comprehensive Organization Ontology.

New HTML+RDFa Draft Published

The RDFa Working Group and the HTML Working Group have published a Working Draft of HTML+RDFa 1.1. This specification defines rules and guidelines for adapting the RDFa Core 1.1 and RDFa Lite 1.1 specifications for use in HTML5 and XHTML5. The rules defined in this specification not only apply to HTML5 documents in non-XML and XML mode, but also to HTML4 and XHTML documents interpreted through the HTML5 parsing rules.

A Major Release of PROV

The W3C Provenance Working Group is happy to announce a new release of the PROV Family of Documents, which provides a framework for interchanging provenance on the Web. This family includes 4 Candidate Recommendations that define the core of PROV along with several supporting documents some of which are first public working drafts. The PROV-Overview is the first entry point for PROV and provides a description of each document and how they fit together.

We are really excited about this release as it provides a comprehensive view of how Web developers and users can express and interchange provenance information. PROV is the product of the great interaction between the working group and both the developer and user communities. That interaction has made the specs better. The group is now looking for your continued interaction on two fronts:

1. Usage & Implementation

We are looking for your feedback about the usage and implementation of PROV. We are interested in all types of usage but in particular:

- Usage in datasets: Are you using PROV in your documents, web pages or dataset?
- Extension: Have you extended PROV with your own vocabulary, ontology or data model?
- Implementation: Does your application, web service, framework generate and/or consume PROV data?

If your using PROV, it would be great if you could fill out one of our questionnaires. You can find them at our Call for Implementations page. These are straightforward and shouldn’t take two much time.

In addition, we are looking for those of you who are interested in implementing a validator or other system based on PROV-Constraints to both run through and jointly develop test cases with us. See the test case process for more details.

2. Comments on FPWDs and updated drafts

In addition to our Candidate Recommendations, we have released the following FPWDs and we are looking for your comments on those.

- PROV-Overview
- PROV-XML defines an XML schema for the provenance model.
- PROV-LINKS Defines extensions to PROV to enable linking provenance information across containers for provenance
- PROV-DC defines a mapping between Dublin Core and PROV.

In addition, the PROV-Primer has been updated.

Please provide your comments to public-prov-comments@w3.org

Conclusion

We are excited to hear your comments and get your implementation experience. We already have many exciting implementations but be sure to add yours to the list.

W3C Invites Implementations of PROV

The W3C Provenance Working Group has published four Candidate Recommendation Documents along with corresponding supporting notes. You can find a complete list at the PROV Overview draft. These document provide a framework for interchanging provenance on the Web. PROV enables one to represent and interchange provenance information using widely available formats such as RDF and XML. In addition, it provides definitions for accessing provenance information, validating it, and mapping to Dublin Core.

The release of these Candidate Recommendation documents is a signal to developers that the Working Group believes that each specification is ready for implementation. Although there are already a number of implementations around, the Provenance Working Group kindly asks for developers across the Web to implement the specification and provide implementation feedback.

You can contact the group directly through the public comments mailing list. You are also encouraged to fill out one of group’s surveys about your usage of PROV.