RDF11-PR-Request

From RDF Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Introduction

This constitutes a request to advance:

  • 6 documents to Proposed Recommendation.
  • 2 document to Proposed Edited Recommendation

In addition the documents above the WG is also publishing:

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

General

Documents

  1. RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax
  2. RDF 1.1 Semantics
  3. RDF Schema 1.1
  4. RDF 1.1 Turtle
  5. RDF 1.1 TriG - RDF Dataset Language
  6. RDF 1.1 N-Triples
  7. RDF 1.1 N-Quads
  8. RDF 1.1 XML Syntax

Target publication date

Thursday 9 January 2014

Record of the decision to request the transition

Decision to request PR for RDF 1.1 Turtle, TriG, N-Triples, N-Quads:

Decision to request PR for RDF 1.1 Concepts, Semantics:

Decision to request PER for RDF Schema 1.1:

Decision to request PER for RDF 1.1 XML Syntax:

Abstracts

  • RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax
    The 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 Schema 1.1
    The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a language for representing information about resources in the World Wide Web. RDF Schema provides a data-modelling vocabulary for RDF data. RDF Schema is an extension of the basic RDF vocabulary.


  • RDF 1.1 Turtle
    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 Turtle that allows an RDF graph to be completely written in a compact and natural text form, with abbreviations for common usage patterns and datatypes. Turtle provides levels of compatibility with the existing N-Triples format as well as the triple pattern syntax of the SPARQL W3C Recommendation.


  • 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.


  • RDF 1.1 XML Syntax
    The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a general-purpose language for representing information in the Web. This document defines an XML syntax for RDF called RDF/XML in terms of Namespaces in XML, the XML Information Set and XML Base.

Changes to the previous versions

  • RDF 1.1 Concepts & Abstract Syntax: [1]
  • RDF 1.1 Semantics: [2]
  • RDF Schema 1.1: [3]
  • RDF 1.1 Turtle: [4]
  • RDF 1.1 Trig: [5]
  • RDF 1.1 N-Triples: [6]
  • RDF 1.1 N-Quads: [7]
  • ESD 1.1 XML Syntax: [8]

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)

  • Overall
    • The specification has no normative reference to W3C specifications that are not yet Proposed Recommendations.
    • 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.


  • RDF 1.1 Turtle and I18N
    • The Internationalization WG did an extensive review of RDF 1.1 Turtle [9].


  • RDF 1.1 Trig and SPARQL
    • 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.


  • RDF 1.1 Concepts and DOM4
    • Two datatypes in RDF 1.1 Concepts were at risk of being marked non-normative, because processing them is dependent on DOM4. The WG resolved to mark these indeed as non-normative (see further on in this document). In addition, the following wording was chosen in RDF 1.1 Concepts to prevent problems:
    • It should also be noted that conforming RDF applications are not required to recognize these datatypes.


  • RDF 1.1 XML Syntax and XPATH 3.0
    • There are references in the RDF 1.1 XML Syntax document to XPATH-3.0, which is in PR.

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

RDF 1.1 Turtle (CR comments page):

  • 41 comments were received.
  • 35 comments ere resolved to the satisfaction of the commenter.
  • 6 comments (by David Robillard: 2, 12, 13, 15, 21, 30) have been addressed. No explicit "resolved" was received from the commenter.
  • Resulting changes were editorial.


RDF 1.1 TriG (CR comments page):

  • Four comments were received (6, 8, 9, 10).
  • All were resolved to the satisfaction of the commenter.
  • As a result one bug was fixed in a grammar rule (see the Changes section). All other changes are minor editorial.


RDF 1.1 N-Triples (CR comments page):

  • Five comments were received (4, 11, 12, 13, 14).
  • All comments were resolved to the satisfaction of the commenter.
  • As a result the text for "Canonical N-Triples" has been made into a separate section. All other changes are minor editorial.


RDF 1.1 N-Quads (CR comments page):

  • Three comments were received (4, 5, 11).
  • All were resolved to the satisfaction of the commenter.
  • As a result a normative reference to RDF Concepts was added. Also, a section mentioning that text/x-nquads with encoding US-ASCII was in the original work, was added.


RDF 1.1 Concepts (CR comments page):

  • Six comments were received (1, 3, 7, 15, 16, 17).
  • Five comments were resolved to the satisfaction of the commenter (3, 7, 15, 16, 17).
  • For one editorial comment (1) the WG did not reach complete consensus with the commenter, but the WG resolved to close the issue, as the matter had been discussed at length and we expected no further progress [10],


RDF 1.1 Semantics (CR comments page):

  • One comment was received (2), see ISSUE-165 datatype map.
  • The WG discussed this extensively, internally and with the commenter (see emails attached to the issue) and finally resolved:
    • "to close this issue, with the rationale stated in the last response to the commenter [11]" (resolution).
  • The commenter, Michael Schneider formally objects to this outcome ([12] with rationale stated, e.g., in [13]).
  • The issue was closed over the objection of WG member Antoine Zimmermann (see issue resolution, with rationale stated in [14].
  • Chair's opinion:
    • The issue is purely editorial: no entailments and no implementations are dependent on its outcome.
    • The editors have given good reasons why this new style of presentation of the material is preferable
    • There are some negative side effects of this change, mainly for academics/text book writers involved in this topic, and for particular spec writers.
    • Overall, the benefits of the change introduced by the editors clearly outweigh the costs

For the record: Jeremy Carroll has formally withdrawn his earlier objection [15]. Also, the WG has recently published an informative note on the issue [16].

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

Implementation Information

CR Exit Criteria RDF 1.1 Turtle, Trig, N-Triples and N-Quads

CR Exit criteria for Turtle, Trig, N-Triples and N-Quads:

  • each approved test (in the respective test suites) passed by two or more implementations (resolution)


RDF 1.1 Test cases: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf11-testcases/index.html


Implementation reports:


Conclusion: CR exit criteria have been met by all four languages (resolution).

CR Exit Criteria RDF 1.1, Semantics

For RDF 1.1 Semantics: each approved test passed by two or more implementations (resolution)

Implementation report:

Conclusion: CR exit criteria have been met for RF 1.1 Semantics (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.

Features at risk

RDF 1.1 Turtle

The following features were marked as "at risk" in the CR version of the Turtle document [17]:

  • The addition of sparqlPrefix and sparqlBase which allow for using SPARQL style BASE and PREFIX directives in a Turtle document.

The WG decided to keep these features (resolution).

RDF 1.1 Concepts

The following features were identified as "at risk" in the CR version of the Concepts document [18] [19]:

  • The rdf:HTML datatype may be made non-normative
  • The rdf:XMLLiteral datatype may be made non-normative

The WG decided to mark rdf:HTML and rdf:XMLLiteral as non-normative (resolution).

Patent Disclosures

None

Retrieved from "https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/index.php?title=RDF11-PR-Request&oldid=4269"