This is [NOT YET] a transition request to CR for the three documents
that specify SPARQL:
* SPARQL Query Language for RDF @@exact URI and bits
* Abstract: RDF is a flexible and extensible way to
represent information about World Wide Web resources. It
is used to represent, among other things, personal
information, social networks, metadata about digital
artifacts, as well as provide a means of integration
over disparate sources of information. A standardized
query language for RDF data with multiple
implementations offers developers and end users a way to
write and to consume the results of queries across this
wide range of information. Used with a common protocol,
applications can access and combine information from
across the Web. @@para This document describes the query
language part of the SPARQL Protocol And RDF Query
Language for easy access to RDF stores. It is designed
to meet the requirements and design objectives described
in RDF Data Access Use Cases and Requirements
* SPARQL Protocol for RDF @@exact URI and bits
* SPARQL is a query language and protocol for RDF. This
document specifies the SPARQL Protocol; it uses WSDL 2.0
to describe a means for conveying SPARQL queries to an
SPARQL query processing service and returning the query
results to the entity that requested them.
* SPARQL Query Results XML Format @@exact URI and bits
* Abstract: RDF is a flexible, extensible way to represent
information about World Wide Web resources. It is used
to represent, among other things, personal information,
social networks, metadata about digital artifacts like
music and images, as well as provide a means of
integration over disparate sources of information. A
standardized query language for RDF data with multiple
implementations offers developers and end users a way to
write and to consume the results of queries across this
wide range of information. @@para This document
describes an XML format for the variable binding and
boolean results formats provided by the SPARQL query
language for RDF.
________________________________________________________________________
Status of these documents (proposed)
This @@day Feb 2006 draft, along with the other working drafts for
SPARQL, are a Candidate Recommendation; it been widely reviewed and
satisfies the requirements documented in RDF Data Access Use Cases and
Requirements ; W3C publishes a Candidate Recommendation to gather
implementation experience.
The first release of this document was 12 Oct 2004 (@@tune to each part)
and the RDF Data Access Working Group has made its best effort to
address comments received since then, releasing several drafts and
resolving a list of issues meanwhile. The design has stabilized, and
once the exit criteria below@@ are met, the Working Group intends to
advance this specification to Proposed Recommendation.
Comments on this document should be sent to
public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, a mailing list with a public archive.
@@pubrules boilerplate: patent disclosures page, etc.
________________________________________________________________________
Whereas
* W3C established our charter in February 2004 (and extended it
in January 2006)
* we have elaborated on the value of this work to the community by
way of use cases and derived design requirements
* we have developed specifications for SPARQL that meet our
charter and requirements
* this specification has received wide review, within the Working
Group and the community, and we have addressed the issues raised
in this review with consensus on all but @@count how many
the RDF Data Access Working Group have decided (@@cite record) to
request that you advance this specification to W3C Candidate
Recommendation and call for implementation.
Summary of Review
The first public working draft of the SPARQL specification was released
in Oct 2004, following a June 2004 Use Cases and Requirements release.
The November Last Call milestone from our charter was delayed due to
difficulties reaching consensus on an initial design and requirements.
See outstanding dissent below. We adopted a WSDL requirement and a
sorting objective in early 2005, accepting another schedule slip. Our
requirements have been stable since the March 2005 draft. In a number of
cases, we have considered features that go beyond these requirements,
but ultimately postponed them due to lack of implementation and design
experience. Features for querying lists, collections have been
frequently requested, but the requestors seem to be satisfied with our
decision to postpone the issue.
Dependencies were discharged as folllows:
* The XML Query WG and XSL WG sent review comments in Sep 2005. We
sent a response that addressed them in Nov 2005. @@following up
to make sure they're satisfied
* We requested review from the Semantic Web Best Practices and
Deployment (SWBPD) Working Group in general and consulted
members of that WG in particular on the SOURCE and UNSAID
issues. This has resulted in various individual comments but no
comments from the SWBPDWG as a whole.
* We exchanged comments with the WSD WG on a number of details
related to specifying the SPARQL protocol using WSDL 2.0. While
our September 2005 protocol draft conflicted with the
then-current WSDL 2.0 specification, our 25 Jan 2005 protocol
draft is in sync with the 6 Jan WSDL 2.0 CR. @@would be nice to
have explicit confirmation
* IETF review of SPARQL related media types
(application/sparql-query, application/sparql-results+xml) began
with review requests (query review request results review
request) on 24 Nov 2005. We have not received any comments as a
result. We accept registration of these media types as a CR exit
criterion.
In July 2005 and September 2005, we released last call working draft of
the query language and protocol (respectively) since we had closed all
outstanding issues and met all our requirements. Since then, there has
been a sustatined tension between a growing user and implementor
community that is ready for the specification to advance despite any
remaing flaws and a dilligent review community that is insisting on a
high level of rigor.
@@changes since last call
@@Evidence that the document has received wide review (e.g., as shown in
an issues list)
@@Evidence that issues have been formally addressed
@@Objections
The WG proceeded with the BRQL strawman and requirements 3.4 Subgraph
Results, 3.10 Result Limits, and 3.6 Optional Match over objections from
Network Inference.
@@Implementation information
@@minimum CR duration
Exit Criteria
* Media Type registrations: normative. the SPARQL specifications
introduce two new Internet Media Types. Review has been
requested, but the types are not yet registered. They should be
registered before SPARQL exits CR.
* application/sparql-query: spec, review request of 24 Nov
2005
* application/sparql-results+xml: spec, review request of
24 Nov 2005
* Media type registrations: informative.
* text/rdf+n3 ? (used in protocol examples)
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E