This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.


From RDF Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an (updated) HTML version of https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2013OctDec/0069.html


This constitutes a request to advance 5 documents to Candidate Recommendation. We expect the RDF 1.1 Recommendation to consist in total of 7 documents, namely:

  • the 5 documents in this request
  • the Turtle document, which has already advanced to CR
  • the RDF Schema document. This 2004 document requires minimal editorial changes and therefore we intend to include this at the time of transition to PR in the RDF 1.1 document set as an Edited Recommendation.

The intention is to request transition to PR for all 7 documents at the same time.

In addition to RDF 1.1 document set the WG is also publishing:

  • the JSON-LD documents as Recommendation
  • a number of Notes, including the RDF 1.1 Primer



  1. RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax
  2. RDF 1.1 Semantics
  3. RDF 1.1 TriG - RDF Dataset Language
  4. RDF 1.1 N-Triples
  5. RDF 1.1 N-Quads

Target publication date

5 November 2013

Record of the decision to request the transition

RDF WG telecon of 23 October 2013:

RESOLVED: to request the Director to advance five RDF 1.1 documents to CR (rdf11-concepts, rdf11-mt, n-quads, n-triples, trig) https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-23#resolution_8

CR duration period

The minimal duration for the CR period is until 26 November 2013.


RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax

he Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a framework for representing information in the Web. 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.

RDF 1.1 Semantics

This document describes a precise semantics for the Resource Description Framework 1.1 [RDF11-CONCEPTS] and RDF Schema [RDF-SCHEMA]. It defines a number of distinct entailment regimes and corresponding patterns of entailment. It is part of a suite of documents which comprise the full specification of RDF 1.1.

RDF 1.1 TriG

The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a general-purpose language for representing information in the Web. This document defines a textual syntax for RDF called TriG that allows an RDF dataset to be completely written in a compact and natural text form, with abbreviations for common usage patterns and datatypes. TriG is an extension of the Turtle [turtle] format.

RDF 1.1 N-Triples

N-Triples is a line-based, plain text format for encoding an RDF graph.

RDF 1.1 N-Quads

N-Quads is a line-based, plain text format for encoding an RDF dataset.


This document was published by the RDF Working Group as a Candidate Recommendation. This document is intended to become a W3C Recommendation. If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to public-rdf-comments@w3.org (subscribe, archives). W3C publishes a Candidate Recommendation to indicate that the document is believed to be stable and to encourage implementation by the developer community. This Candidate Recommendation is expected to advance to Proposed Recommendation no earlier than 26 November 2013. All comments are welcome.

Publication as a Candidate Recommendation does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.

This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.

Changes to the Last Call versions

Evidence that the document satisfies group's requirements

The requirements have not changed since the previous transition. All requirements previously satisfied remain satisfied.

Evidence that dependencies with other groups are met (or not)

The WG has aligned RDF 1.1 TriG as much as possible with SPARQL 1.1 (ISSUE 1). SPARQL WG members have been active in the RDF WG to help in making this happen.

The Internationalization WG did at an earlier stage an extensive review of Turtle [1]. TriG, N-Triples and N-Quads are only marginally different from Turtle. RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics are only marginally different from the 2004 Recommendations, which had extensive i18n review. We have twice requested the Internationalization WG to check the LC drafts [2] [3] and our request was confirmed [4] but no reviews or comments have been received.

Note that the Charter also refers to a dependency to the RDFa Working group's @profile mechanism. However, since the writing of the Charter, the RDFa Working Group has decided to abandon that feature, which does not appear in the RDFa 1.1 Recommendation. This dependency is, therefore, moot.

The specification has no normative reference to W3C specifications that are not yet Candidate Recommendations.

Evidence of public review

These specifications have been very widely reviewed both by public commenters and by other W3C working groups. The public comments list of the WG provides evidence of this. Also, the Trig, N-Triples and N-Quads syntax specification have been used extensively in the SW community since the original proposal and have thus already gone through many cycles of review.

Evidence that issues have been formally addressed

The following page contains a detailed record of the disposition of LC comments on the documents:

The WG raised in total 21 issues in response to Last Call comments:

  • 16 LC issues were closed with explicit agreement of the commenter.
  • 1 LC issue was closed where the commenter may still want some small editorial change (issue 145)
  • 1 LC issue was closed with no response from commenter (issue 127)
  • 2 LC issues were considered to be non-blocking and will be addressed during CR (148 & 165). In both cases the commenter explicitly agreed that the issue does not affect tests, so can safely be handled during CR.
  • 1 LC issue (concerning semantics of datasets) was closed over a formal objection from Jeremy Carroll [5]. Extensive discussions took place during the LC period with the commenter and within the WG. The WG felt it could not provide more than it currently offers [6] and decide to archive this in a new issue and POSTPONE it (ISSUE-167: Stronger semantics of RDF Datasets?).

The RDF WG issue tracker contains the record of decisions on RDF issues:

Implementation Information

CR Exit Criteria:

  1. For Trig, N-Triples and N-Quads: each approved test (in the respective test suite) passed by two or more implementations (resolution)
  2. For RDF 1.1 Semantics: each approved test passed by two or more implementations (resolution)

RDF 1.1 Concepts (like 2004 RDF Concepts) does not have a test suite and is not directly implemented in software; instead it is implemented by the specs which build on it, including the other specs in this set. As such, we do not track implementations of RDF 1.1 Concepts.

Test suites:

Features at risk

The CR drafts do not contain features at risk.

The LC draft of Trig included in Sec. 4.5 "Grammar" two features at risk. The WG resolved to keep both features:

Patent Disclosures