- 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