Re: agenda+ naming our specifications

> On Dec 14, 2022, at 5:45 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I would like to discuss, in one of our next meetings, the naming convention for the future RDF specifications.
> 
> There is some documentation about W3C good practices here:
> 
>   https://www.w3.org/2005/05/tr-versions
> 
> After discussing with the sys team, having the version number in the middle of the short-name (e.g. rdf12-concepts) is possible.
> 
> That being said, the current state of RDF recommendations is quite messy. For example:
> - the 1999 RDF-spec-syntax does not indicate anywhere that a more recent version is available
> - some specs have only a version-less short name (e.g. rdf-primer), which correspond to the 2014 (1.1) version,
>   while others have a versioned short name (e.g. rdf11-concepts) for the 2014 version, and the version-less short name corresponds to the 2004 version (e.g. rdf-concepts)

Note that I did add specref aliases for many of our specifications [3], so for example, [[RDF-XML]] and [[RDF11-XML]] are aliases of [[rdf-syntax-grammar]], [[rdf11-schema]].

I had suggested using rdf12-xxx for most of our specs currently using this pattern, and just appending “12” to other specs, such as turtle12, trig12, rdf-syntax-grammar12.

> I made a map [1] of the genalogy of RDF specifications, indicating when they point to a more recent version, as well as what short names correspond to. This is also on github [2].

>   pa
> 
> PS: at some point, it would be interesting to make a similar map for SPARQL
> 
> [1] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pchampin/rdf-genealogy/main/rdf-genealogy.svg
> [2] https://github.com/pchampin/rdf-genealogy
> 
> <OpenPGP_0x9D1EDAEEEF98D438.asc>

Gregg

[3] https://github.com/tobie/specref/pull/727