decide on the short names of the specifications #4

ghurlbot · 2022-12-15T17:40:08Z

due 22 Dec 2022

gkellogg · 2022-12-30T20:29:31Z

From email chain, I think we come up with the following shortnames:

RDF12-NEW
RDF12-CONCEPTS
RDF12-N-QUADS
RDF12-N-TRIPLES
RDF12-PRIMER
RDF12-SCHEMA
RDF12-MT – Perhaps RDF12-SEMANTICS would be more obvious
RDF12-TRIG
RDF12-TURTLE
RDF12-XML

and for SPARQL:

SPARQL12-OVERVIEW
SPARQL12-QUERY
SPARQL12-UPDATE
SPARQL12-SERVICE-DESCRIPTION
SPARQL12-FEDERATED-QUERY
SPARQL12-RESULTS-JSON
SPARQL12-RESULTS-CSV-TSV
SPARQL12-XMLRES – Perhaps SPARQL12-RESULTS-XML would be more consistent
SPARQL12-ENTAILMENT
SPARQL12-PROTOCOL
SPARQL12-HTTP-RDF-UPDATE

That's 21 documents! Although many may need only minimal editorial work.

TallTed · 2023-01-05T17:18:03Z

I like the suggested switches to RDF12-SEMANTICS and SPARQL12-RESULTS-XML.

I suggest that RDF12-XML should be changed to RDF12-RDFXML to avoid confusion that's been constant about the relationships between RDF and XML.

I'm happy with the other names as above.

Tpt · 2023-01-05T17:22:02Z

SPARQL12-HTTP-RDF-UPDATE seems a bit confusing to me. The previous document was named "SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store HTTP Protocol". What about something like SPARQL12-HTTP-GRAPH-STORE-PROTOCOL?

TallTed · 2023-01-05T17:28:57Z

SPARQL12-HTTP-RDF-UPDATE has a strong potential to confuse relative to SPARQL12-UPDATE (which is already RDF over HTTP...). I would support either SPARQL12-HTTP-GRAPH-STORE-PROTOCOL or SPARQL12-GRAPH-STORE-PROTOCOL for this doc.

afs · 2023-01-05T17:30:03Z

+1 to sparql12-graph-store-protocol.

afs · 2023-01-05T17:39:53Z

+1 to rdf12-rdfxml

ktk · 2023-01-05T17:45:51Z

Updated proposal by @TallTed (via Zoom chat, in here for logging)

RDF12-NEW
RDF12-CONCEPTS
RDF12-PRIMER
RDF12-SCHEMA
RDF12-SEMANTICS
RDF12-SYNTAX-N-QUADS
RDF12-SYNTAX-N-TRIPLES
RDF12-SYNTAX-TRIG
RDF12-SYNTAX-TURTLE
RDF12-SYNTAX-RDFXML

SPARQL12-CONCEPTS
SPARQL12-QUERY
SPARQL12-UPDATE
SPARQL12-SERVICE-DESCRIPTION
SPARQL12-FEDERATED-QUERY
SPARQL12-RESULTS-JSON
SPARQL12-RESULTS-CSV-TSV
SPARQL12-RESULTS-XML
SPARQL12-ENTAILMENT
SPARQL12-PROTOCOL
SPARQL12-GRAPH-STORE-PROTOCOL

TallTed · 2023-01-05T17:47:10Z

RDF12-NEW
RDF12-CONCEPTS
RDF12-PRIMER
RDF12-SCHEMA
RDF12-SEMANTICS
RDF12-SYNTAX-N-QUADS
RDF12-SYNTAX-N-TRIPLES
RDF12-SYNTAX-TRIG
RDF12-SYNTAX-TURTLE
RDF12-SYNTAX-RDFXML

SPARQL12-NEW
SPARQL12-CONCEPTS
SPARQL12-QUERY
SPARQL12-UPDATE
SPARQL12-SERVICE-DESCRIPTION
SPARQL12-FEDERATED-QUERY
SPARQL12-RESULTS-JSON
SPARQL12-RESULTS-CSV-TSV
SPARQL12-RESULTS-XML
SPARQL12-ENTAILMENT
SPARQL12-PROTOCOL
SPARQL12-GRAPH-STORE-PROTOCOL

afs · 2023-01-05T17:51:47Z

(The argument made for "syntax-" was just the one case of "rdf12-xml" be coming "rdf12-rdfxml")

I don't think the "syntax-" and "results-" adds much help to people

They require more typing of a longer prefix for browser autocomplete to pick one URL.

domel · 2023-01-05T20:00:44Z

RDF12-[SYNTAX]-RDFXML

I prefer to remove the RDF substring from the RDFXML. Note that "RDF/XML Syntax Specification" (RDF 1.0) was changed to "RDF 1.1 XML Syntax". I think that the next version will have the title "RDF 1.2 XML Syntax". If so, RDF12-[SYNTAX]-XML is a better option.

gkellogg · 2023-01-05T20:38:42Z

@afs said:

I don't think the "syntax-" and "results-" adds much help to people

Does this mean you'd prefer the following for SPARQL result formats?

SPARQL12-JSON
SPARQL12-CSV-TSV
SPARQL12-XML

As for RDF/XML, my preference would be RDF12-XML followed by RDF12-RDFXML, but I think that's redundant. Lastly, RDF12-XML-SYNTAX, but don't favor adding SYNTAX to any other concrete format.

Note that the JSON-LD group will likely end up publishing JSON-LD12, JSON-LD12-API, and JSON-LD12-FRAMING eventually.

afs · 2023-01-05T22:17:36Z

Does this mean you'd prefer the following for SPARQL result formats?

SPARQL already (for better or worse) has "results-" for 2 RECs : "json" and "csv-tsv". I don't mind so much on whether to leave because it 'just is' or remove "results-". "results" is the purpose of the REC.

Now is a good time to sort out "XMLres".

Adding "syntax-" was argued based on rdf12-xml then not wanting rdf12-rdfxml. The title is "RDF 1.1 XML Syntax". I think we all agree rdf-syntax-grammar no longer makes sense.

We need to decide whether there is a new the alias but that's not urgent - we do need the short names.

We currently have "/turtle" (title "RDF 1.1 Turtle"), "/n-triples" /n-quads" and "/trig" which work fine and do not have syntax in the top level title. IFAIK this has not been a problem with these names. Adding "syntax-" does not solve an issue here. Adding "rdf12-" brings RECs together and the aliases remain.

So let's solve naming for RDF/XML and not spill over to where there isn't a problem.

In order: rdf12-xml, rdf12-rdfxml or rdf12-xml-syntax (following the title).

rubensworks · 2023-01-06T07:31:22Z

To avoid confusion for newcomers (understanding "RDF12" as "RDF twelve") and to open up the possibility to mint RDF version 12 in the (long-term?) future, I would suggest adding a dash between the "1" and "2".

RDF1-2-NEW
RDF1-2-CONCEPTS
RDF1-2-PRIMER
RDF1-2-SCHEMA
RDF1-2-SEMANTICS
RDF1-2-SYNTAX-N-QUADS
RDF1-2-SYNTAX-N-TRIPLES
RDF1-2-SYNTAX-TRIG
RDF1-2-SYNTAX-TURTLE
RDF1-2-SYNTAX-RDFXML

SPARQL1-2-NEW
SPARQL1-2-CONCEPTS
SPARQL1-2-QUERY
SPARQL1-2-UPDATE
SPARQL1-2-SERVICE-DESCRIPTION
SPARQL1-2-FEDERATED-QUERY
SPARQL1-2-RESULTS-JSON
SPARQL1-2-RESULTS-CSV-TSV
SPARQL1-2-RESULTS-XML
SPARQL1-2-ENTAILMENT
SPARQL1-2-PROTOCOL
SPARQL1-2-GRAPH-STORE-PROTOCOL

TallTed · 2023-01-06T14:27:28Z

@rubensworks -- I agree. I raised a similar issue on the SPARQL-12 repo (which I think should soon be renamed to SPARQL-next, as most of the content has an indeterminate version target, with whatever issues are being taken up for SPARQL-1-2 transferred to this, or a new, really SPARQL-1-2 repo)....

afs · 2023-01-06T15:02:15Z

As already publicly communicated, the SPARQL-1.2 repo will be renamed as sparql-dev if that is possible without loss.

gkellogg · 2023-01-06T15:59:22Z

The RDF 1.1 group established the RDF11- naming convention, as did SPARQL with SPARQL11-. JSON-LD has used this with JSON-LD11 as well, and I think there’s much more precedent in W3C short name conventions. Changing to RDF1-2- goes against this precedent, and I personally find it much more annoying. So 👎 for me.

westurner · 2023-02-15T17:45:16Z

Note that the JSON-LD group will likely end up publishing JSON-LD12, JSON-LD12-API, and JSON-LD12-FRAMING eventually.

Should there be a SPARQL12-RESULTS-JSONLD ?
Should there be a SPARQL12-RESULTS-CSVW ?
Should there be a SPARQL12-RESULTS-JSONLD-CSVW ?

CSVW:

PROV:

The SPARQL query data-generating process and its provenence metadata are modeled with W3C PROV.
UseCase: [a SPARQL12-RESULTS-CSVW query result] SHOULD/COULD into PROV metadata in the CSVW
The PROV Document overview has a "Roadmap" that lists the audience for each document in a table:
https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-overview/#roadmap

Is temporal SPARQL out of scope, paste the due date?

/? temporal sparql:
https://www.google.com/search?q=temporal+sparql
- T-SPARQL
- SPARQLMT
/? temporal sparql "T-SPARQL" "SPARQLMT"
https://www.google.com/search?q=temporal+sparql+%22T-SPARQL%22+%22SPARQLMT%22
- SPARQLMT
  - "A New query method for the temporal RDF Model RDFMT Based on SPARQL" (2021)
    https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3469213.3470224

VladimirAlexiev · 2023-04-01T11:34:41Z

@westurner

SPARQL12-RESULTS-CSVW, SPARQL12-RESULTS-JSONLD-CSVW sound like interesting possibilities. Do you have links about them, or you are proposing them here?
"temporal sparql": if you are interested in this, post an issue at https://github.com/w3c/sparql-12/

gkellogg · 2023-04-01T18:07:11Z

It would be great if the sparql-dev group were to come up with something concrete on JSON-LD and CSVW based result formats. A hypothetical YAML-LD results format could follow on that, if/as/when YAML-LD moves onto the REC track.

Definitely something that would come after the core deliverables for RDF-star are completed, and possibly after 1.2 RECs are finished.

afs · 2023-04-01T19:37:36Z

This is off topic here but ...

JSON-LD and CSVW produce RDF graphs.
What does a result set in RDF look like? And what's the use case?

(There is a vocabulary for this FWIW.)

SPARQL already supports JSON-LD through content negotiation.

westurner · 2023-04-02T06:19:46Z

@pgroth @lucmoreau (W3C PROV-O Overview)

How should / are SPARQL queries modeled with PROV with maximal metadata?

westurner · 2023-04-02T07:08:40Z

(There is a vocabulary http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/result-set for this FWIW.)

https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-XMLres/#mime:

mimetype: application/sparql-results+xml
file extension: .srx

But that's obviously a different thing.

pgroth · 2023-04-03T18:46:31Z

@westurner - I'm not sure the context here? But I would do as a start:

ex:query a prov:Entity.
ex:queryProcessor a prov:Activity.
ex:result a prov:Entity.
ex:queryProcessor prov:used ex:query.
ex:result prov:wasGeneratedBy ex:queryProcessor.
ex:result prov:wasDerivedFrom ex:query.

I would also add start and endtimes and probably make the spraql and query result sets dereferencable urls.

Umm, does that help?

westurner · 2023-04-03T19:10:43Z

That helps thanks. There may be existing SPARQL w/ PROV Use Cases or Test Cases with more comprehensive examples that e.g. SPARQL12-RESULTS-CSVW, SPARQL12-RESULTS-JSONLD-CSVW might helpfully reference as optional additional schema in the interest of signed data quality.

The Schema.org project has a system for RDFa/JSON-LD/ examples in text files in git - that could be improved - that could be useful for Integration Tests of some or all of the schema(s) referenced in this thread.

gkellogg · 2023-04-03T19:27:16Z

This is off topic here but ...

JSON-LD and CSVW produce RDF graphs. What does a result set in RDF look like? And what's the use case?

(There is a vocabulary for this FWIW.)

SPARQL already supports JSON-LD through content negotiation.

IIRC, some time ago, there was discussion of a hypothetical result format that would borrow the context support from JSON-LD so that result set entries could include terms that would be expanded the way that JSON-LD expands values. This would create a result set that contained a more compact representation. For example, a result could look like the following:

{
  "@context": {
    "book": {"@type": "@id"}
  },
  "head": { "vars": [ "book" , "title" ]
  } ,
  "results": { 
    "bindings": [
      {
        "book": "http://example.org/book/book6" ,
        "title": "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince"
      } ,
      {
        "book": "http://example.org/book/book7" ,
        "title": "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows"
      } ,
      {
        "book": "http://example.org/book/book5" ,
        "title": "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix"
      } ,
      {
        "book": "http://example.org/book/book4" ,
        "title": "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"
      } ,
      {
        "book": "http://example.org/book/book2" ,
        "title": "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"
      } ,
      {
        "book": "http://example.org/book/book3" ,
        "title": "Harry Potter and the Prisoner Of Azkaban"
      } ,
      {
        "book": "http://example.org/book/book1" ,
        "title": "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone"
      }
    ]
  }
}

This idea was never really explored. Presumably a CSVW-based result format would take advantage of the metadata described for CSV tables in https://www.w3.org/TR/tabular-metadata/, but to describe results rather than a dataset. To my knowledge, this hasn't been investigated, but seems like the idea would be similar to using a JSON-LD context for describing column values.

Anyway, pretty off-topic, and something that should be initiated in the SPARQL Dev community.

pchampin mentioned this issue Dec 16, 2022

write a full proposal of all document names [1] w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter#56

Closed

pchampin transferred this issue from w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter Dec 16, 2022

pchampin added the action Actions are typically assigned during calls by ghurlbot label Dec 16, 2022

pchampin self-assigned this Dec 16, 2022

pchampin changed the title ~~write a full proposal of all document names~~ decide on the short names of the specifications Jan 12, 2023

pchampin removed the action Actions are typically assigned during calls by ghurlbot label Jan 12, 2023

rubensworks mentioned this issue Feb 6, 2023

Reorganise the SPARQL tests area. w3c/rdf-tests#84

Closed

pfps added the action Actions are typically assigned during calls by ghurlbot label Feb 23, 2023

pchampin added the complete label Mar 9, 2023

ghurlbot closed this as completed Mar 9, 2023

This was referenced Mar 14, 2023

YAML-LD-star json-ld/yaml-ld#45

Open

JSON-LD Star, YAML-LD Star RDFLib/rdflib-jsonld#109

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

decide on the short names of the specifications #4

decide on the short names of the specifications #4

ghurlbot commented Dec 15, 2022

gkellogg commented Dec 30, 2022

TallTed commented Jan 5, 2023

Tpt commented Jan 5, 2023

TallTed commented Jan 5, 2023

afs commented Jan 5, 2023

afs commented Jan 5, 2023

ktk commented Jan 5, 2023 •

edited

Loading

TallTed commented Jan 5, 2023

afs commented Jan 5, 2023

domel commented Jan 5, 2023

gkellogg commented Jan 5, 2023

afs commented Jan 5, 2023

rubensworks commented Jan 6, 2023

TallTed commented Jan 6, 2023

afs commented Jan 6, 2023

gkellogg commented Jan 6, 2023

westurner commented Feb 15, 2023 •

edited

Loading

VladimirAlexiev commented Apr 1, 2023

gkellogg commented Apr 1, 2023

afs commented Apr 1, 2023

westurner commented Apr 2, 2023

westurner commented Apr 2, 2023

pgroth commented Apr 3, 2023

westurner commented Apr 3, 2023

gkellogg commented Apr 3, 2023

decide on the short names of the specifications #4

decide on the short names of the specifications #4

Comments

ghurlbot commented Dec 15, 2022

gkellogg commented Dec 30, 2022

TallTed commented Jan 5, 2023

Tpt commented Jan 5, 2023

TallTed commented Jan 5, 2023

afs commented Jan 5, 2023

afs commented Jan 5, 2023

ktk commented Jan 5, 2023 • edited Loading

TallTed commented Jan 5, 2023

afs commented Jan 5, 2023

domel commented Jan 5, 2023

gkellogg commented Jan 5, 2023

afs commented Jan 5, 2023

rubensworks commented Jan 6, 2023

TallTed commented Jan 6, 2023

afs commented Jan 6, 2023

gkellogg commented Jan 6, 2023

westurner commented Feb 15, 2023 • edited Loading

VladimirAlexiev commented Apr 1, 2023

gkellogg commented Apr 1, 2023

afs commented Apr 1, 2023

westurner commented Apr 2, 2023

westurner commented Apr 2, 2023

pgroth commented Apr 3, 2023

westurner commented Apr 3, 2023

gkellogg commented Apr 3, 2023

ktk commented Jan 5, 2023 •

edited

Loading

westurner commented Feb 15, 2023 •

edited

Loading