W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > January 2013

Fwd: Transition Request: RDF Turtle to CR

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:22:22 +0100
Message-ID: <510697AE.4070907@vu.nl>
To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Eric, Gavin, all,

CR request for Turtle has been sent out.

FYI,
Guus

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Transition Request: RDF Turtle to CR
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:18:52 +0000
Resent-From: <team-rdf-chairs@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:17:47 +0100
From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
To: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Tim 
Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
CC: <chairs@w3.org>, <" \" <team-rdf-chairs@w3.org>"@frink.w3.org>

Dear Director,

The RDF Working Group would like to ask you to advance the Last Call WD
of "Turtle: Terse RDF Triple Language" to Candidate Recommendation. The
details of the request are below.

Thanks in advance for considering this.

Guus Schreiber, David Wood
RDF Working Group co-chairs


1. Document Title

Turtle: Terse RDF Triple Language

2. Document URI

http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/

3. Editor's draft for Candidate Recommendation

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/index.html#

4. Last Call WD

http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-turtle-20120710/

5. Estimated publication date

February 12, 2013

6. Record of the decision to request the transition

RDF WG telecon of 12 December 2012:
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-12-12#resolution_3

7. CR duration period

The minimal duration for this CR period is until 26 March, 2013.

8. Abstract

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.

9. Status

This document was published by the RDF Working Group as a Candidate
Recommendation. This document is intended to become a W3C
Recommendation. 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 in the course of 2013.
If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send these
to public-rdf-comments@w3.org (subscribe, archives). The Candidate
Recommendation period ends 26 March 2013. All feedback is welcome.

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.

The following feature is at risk and may be removed:

- In order to improve alignment Turtle with SPARQL the Working Group
proposes to add the grammar productions sparqlPrefix and sparqlBase
which allow for using SPARQL style BASE and PREFIX directives in a
Turtle document.

10. Changes to the Last Call version

See:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/index.html#sec-changelog

The changes include:
- Renaming for STRING_* productions to STRING_LITERAL_QUOTE style
    names rather than numbers
- Local part of prefix names can now include ":"
- Turtle in HTML
- Renaming of grammar tokens and rules around IRIs
- Reserved character escape sequences
- String escape sequences limited to strings
- Numeric escape sequences limited to IRIs and Strings
- Support top-level blank-predicate-object lists
- White space required between @prefix and prefix label

None of the changes made since the July 10, 2012 start of Last Call are
considered to have the effect of completely invalidating any previous
review of the specification.

11. Evidence that the document satisfies group's requirements

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

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

The WG has aligned Turtle 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 listed "feature at risk" is directly intended to achieve
this aim to the maximum.

The Internationalization WG sent a list of comments on the LC document,
which were all resolved with consensus:

   Turtle-related Issue list of the Internationalization WG:
     http://www.w3.org/International/track/products/34/all
   Message from the Internationalization WG:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2012Dec/0001.html

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.

13. Evidence of public review

The specification has 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 Turtle specification has
been used extensively in the SW community since the original proposal
and has thus already gone through many cycles of review.

14. Evidence that issues have been formally addressed

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

  http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products/3/all

All issues have been closed. None have been postponed. There are no
formal objections outstanding against the Turtle specification.

15. Implementation Information

CR Exit Criteria:

     Two or more implementations should pass all the approved tests in
the test suite.

Further information:

   Test suite:
     http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/file/default/rdf-turtle/tests-ttl
   Description test suite:
     http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Test_Suite
   Decision log:
     http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-29#resolution_9
   Sample implementation report:

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/reports/index.html

16. Features at risk

The following feature is at risk at risk and may be removed:

- In order to improve alignment Turtle with SPARQL the Working Group
proposes to add the grammar productions sparqlPrefix and sparqlBase
which allow for using SPARQL style BASE and PREFIX directives in a
Turtle document.

See:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/index.html#sec-grammar-grammar

WG decision log:
   http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-01-09#resolution_3

17. Patent Disclosures

None
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 15:22:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:53 GMT