- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2022 11:19:08 +0000
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
On 08/12/2022 19:54, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> We discussed today using the “rdf12-“ prefix for our specs and repositories (e.g., “‘rdf12-concepts” for RDF 1.2 Concepts). But, not all specs used this convention.
>
> * n-triples
> * n-quads
> * turtle
> * trig
> * rdf-syntax-grammar
If we changing names anyway, should we put "xml" into the name?
"rdf12-xml-syntax" (there are several possibilities)
> I think for the infrastructure, it probably makes sense to append “12” to those shortnames (e.g., “n-triples12”) rather than starting a new convention. I believe that there’s some standard infrastructure that handles version numbers in shortnames, so that “n-triples” would end up refering to our spec, and “n-triples11” would (magically) refer to the 1.1 version.
If we changing names anyway, lets go for one style.
Either a prefix of "rdf12-" generally:
rdf12-n-triples? Or rdf12-ntriples?
or postfixed "rdf-concepts-12"
It's
/xpath-functions-3/ and /xpath-functions-31/
with redirect from /xpath-functions/
but
/xmlschema11-1/, /xmlschema11-2/
>
> We should probably run this by Philippe and/or Dom.
Yes.
I prefer rdf12- as a general grouping style but if the infrastructure
imposes a convention that might be better.
We could even have
TR/rdf12-FOO
redirect to /FOO12
>
> Gregg Kellogg
> gregg@greggkellogg.net
>
>
The current SPARQL specs are "sparq11-*" except "rdf-sparql-XMLres"
"sparq11-xml-results" would work (if it gets revised)
Andy
Received on Sunday, 11 December 2022 11:19:23 UTC