Re: Transition Request: RDF Turtle to CR

Thanks! I will set up a doodle soon for a transition call (I wait for another doodle to be settled, so that I would not mess it up...)

Ivan

On Jan 28, 2013, at 16:22 , Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf