RDF Working Group Charter Extension Request

The RDF working group, created in February 2011, has an initial lifetime of 24 months, with a charter ending on 31 January 2013. The group has just released 4 Last Call Working Drafts and requests an extension of eleven months to progress these specifications to Recommendation (until 31 December 2013). Note that the timetable is a bit stricter and aims at the Recommendations during summer 2013, but the extension leaves some room for possible shifts.

The abbreviations in the tables below stand for the following Working Group documents:

• rdf-cas: RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax
• rdf-sem: RDF 1.1 Semantics
• rdf-turtle: Turtle: Terse RDF Triple Lanaguage
• json-ld-syntax: JSON-LD 1.0: A JSON-based Serialization for Linked Data
• json-ld-api: JSON-LD 1.0 Processing Algorithms and API
• rdf-trig: TriG: RDF Dataset Language
• rdf-xml: RDF 1.1 XML Syntax Specification
• rdf-schema: RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.1: RDF Schema
• rdf-primer: RDF 1.1 Primer
• rdf-new: What's New in RDF 1.1 (see resolution)
• rdf-test: RDF 1.1 Test Cases
• rdf-ntriples: N-Triples: A limited Turtle syntax for triples
• rdf-dataset: RDF Dataset Semantics

RDF Working Group Status

The group has a healthy membership and a set of core participants (about 20) actively contributing to and and reviewing specifications. The mailing list archive (over 6,700 messages) and the tracker (111 issues, 12 of which remain open) are good indicators of the activity of the working group. Oracle, IBM, Google and the Apache Software Foundation are active participants.

Most of the work of the group was delayed due to one protracted discussion regarding RDF graphs, especially the differences in semantics between various deployed use cases and the 2004 RDF Semantics Recommendation. This discussion reached a natural equilibrium point, ie, a consensus in the group, around September 2012, which clarified the group's position. We have no major technical issues to discuss and the way is thus clear to make quick progress on the remaining documents. Most of them (rdf-cas, rdf-xml, rdf-schema and rdf-primer) now require only minor updates to bring them in line with the forthcoming rdf-sem.

Many members have indicated their intention to implement the specifications, suggesting the need for this decadal update to RDF.

Proposed Timetable

The proposed revised timetable is as follows.

Current Status

Since its launch, the group has released the following working drafts. Four Recommendation-track documents were published as Last Call Working Draft.

Deviation from Charter

The RDF working group charter identifies eight possible deliverables, all of which of which may be on recommendation track. The table below lists those; note that a deliverable of the original charter may be completed through the publication of several, related documents, i.e., there isn't necessarily a 1-1 correspondence between a deliverable item and the documents.

Most of the work of the group was delayed due to one protracted discussion regarding RDF graphs, especially the differences in semantics between various deployed use cases and the 2004 RDF Semantics Recommendation. This discussion reached a natural equilibrium point around September 2012, which clarified the group's position. We have no major technical issues to discuss and the way is thus clear to make quick progress on the remaining documents. Most of them (rdf-cas, rdf-xml, rdf-schema and rdf-primer) now require only minor updates to bring them in line with the forthcoming rdf-sem.

The various documents to be published in the group are in various stages of Working Drafts (except for Turtle, which is in CR); the table below shows the deviation of the current documents compared to the charter.

Specifications requiring substantial editorial work

• RDF 1.1 Semantics was substantially delayed due to fundamental disagreements within the group. However, all 12 issues have been successfully resolved and the document is now being drafted. A note on the semantics of datasets is available, which takes in consideration some of the decisions made for RDF semantics.
• RDF Primer is now in progress after all major technical issues have been resolved.
• RDF Test Cases should proceed quickly now that all major technical issues have been resolved.

Specifications requiring minor editorial work

• RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax has made steady progress and is nearly ready for Last Call status. The document is currently waiting on the first WD of RDF Semantics.
• RDF/XML Syntax Specification was determined not to require major changes or updates. Minor errata will be repaired.
• RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.1: RDF Schema was determined not to require major changes or updates. Minor errata will be repaired.
• RDF Turtle Syntax Specification has proceeded in an orderly fashion. Discussions related to RDF graphs and datasets necessitated the splitting of this deliverable into two documents, Turtle and TriG, as allowed by our charter. It has also been decided to publish a separate WG Note for ntriples, instead incorporating it into the Turtle specification (or keeping it in the RDF Test document, as in the 2004 version)
• RDF JSON Syntax Specification was returned to the JSON-LD Interest Group for further work for approximately one year until adequately mature. The specification was returned to the RDF WG in June 2012. Work has proceeded consistently since that time.

Participation

The following participants have indicated their interest in continued participation in the RDF Working Group, and work on implementation (where appropriate) is ongoing:

1. David Wood
2. Gregg Kellogg
3. Guus Schreiber
4. Markus Lanthaler
5. Peter F. Patel-Schneider
6. Eric Prud'hommeaux
7. Pat Hayes
8. Pierre-Antoine Champin
9. Andy Seaborne
10. Richard Cyganiak
11. Gavin Carothers
12. Ivan Herman
13. Scott Bauer
14. Sandro Hawke
15. Antoine Zimmermann
16. Ted Thibodeau
17. Yves Raimond
18. Charles Greer
19. Thomas Baker