- From: Nicholas Car <nicholas.car@surroundaustralia.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 20:14:26 +1000
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.stonybrook.edu>
- Cc: public-rif-dev@w3.org, geosparql.swg@lists.opengeospatial.org, cawelty@gmail.com
- Message-ID: <CAP7nqh3NsedqsCv8J0LEv69DO=nYrCGVQre-JFSUcJf3+e+2Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Follow-up to the assertion about the use of "Probably rifps+xml": The appendix on RIF Media Type registration [1] states: "This media type [application/rif+xml] is intended to be shared with other RIF dialects, to be specified in the future. Interoperation between the dialects is governed by the RIF specifications." I find this hard to follow since Presentation and Abstract Syntaxes are _not_ XML. Not sure what to do here. I will contact the original proponent - Sandro Hawk - about this. Nick [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/rif-core/#Appendix:_RIF_Media_Type_Registration On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 7:53 PM Nicholas Car < nicholas.car@surroundaustralia.com> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Thanks for your response points. We will investigate validation with RIF4J > if and only if we make further use of RIF than just this one document and > the corresponding one for GeoSPARQL 1.1 we will surely produce. > > Regarding the Media Type "application/rif+xml": I make take it upon myself > to register this, if we make wider use of RIF. > > Regarding your assertion that the Media Type for Presentation Syntax > documents is "Probably rifps+xml", as in "application/rifps+xml", well it > can't be since the Presentation Syntax is clearly not XML! It would perhaps > have to be "text/rifps" or similar. If I take on the above, I make take on > this one too. > > Regards, > > Nick > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 7:38 PM Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.stonybrook.edu> > wrote: > >> Thanks for your email. Some answers within. Hope somebody else can fill >> in the gaps in my answers. >> >> >> >> On 1/3/21 9:51 PM, Nicholas Car wrote: >> >> Dear RIF Dev Mailing list, >> >> We, the GeoSPARQL Standards Working Group, are updating the OGC's >> GeoSPARQL specification, first published in 2012 which we refer to as >> GeoSPARQL 1.0. We wish to better present the specification in >> machine-readable form and to update it producing GeoSPARQL 1.1. >> >> GeoSPARQL 1.0 includes a template for a set of RIF rules [1]. We would >> like to expand this template to produce a RIF artifact that can be included >> in the set of GeoSPARQL 1.0 resources. We will also produce a GeoSPARQL 1.1 >> RIF artifact within the next few months. >> >> Please could you assist us with the following points: >> >> 1. Validity of our 1.0 RIF document >> a. We have not been able to find any operating RIF validators listed >> by the RIF WG [2] other than perhaps RIF4J [3]. Can you indicate others, in >> particular, any that are online? >> >> >> It seems that RIF4J is the only validator that is still available. >> >> >> >> b. Have any multi-format RIF validators been produced, specifically >> for XML and Presentation Syntax? >> >> >> See above. >> >> >> >> 2. Presentation of our 1.0 RIF document >> a. The Media Type "application/rif+xml" is indicated for use for RIF >> documents [4] but it is not registered with IANA's Media Types list [5]. >> Can you clarify the status of the RIF Media Type? >> >> >> This was the intent. The working group chairs were supposed to see to it >> that the media types are registered, but apparently didn't. >> >> >> >> b. Assuming a RIF document in XML is to use the Media Type >> "application/rif+xml" and the file extension ".rif", what should a >> Presentation Syntax document use? Should it use ".rifps" for the file >> extension, as per WG examples like [6] but then what Media Type? >> >> >> Probably rifps+xml. Again, somebody was supposed to do it, but dropped >> this task. >> >> >> c. We intend to present the RIF artifacts for GeoSPARQL 1.0 and 1.1 >> online with persistent URIs that will resolve and communicate resource >> Media Types via HTTP Content Negotiation. We could present multiple media >> types for the same artifact (RIF in XML & Presentation Syntax). Does this >> have precedent in the RIF community? >> >> >> This sounds reasonable. I do not recall seeing a precedent though. >> >> >> >> Next I include a snippet of our RIF document below. It is highly >> repetitive so I have only included the first 2 ForAll elements. >> >> >> The snippet looks good. >> >> -- >> >> Best regards, >> Michael Kifer >> >> >> >> >> ---------- >> Document ( >> Prefix (geo <http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#>) >> Prefix (geof <http://www.opengis.net/def/function/geosparql/>) >> >> Group ( >> # geo:sfEquals >> Forall ?f1 ?f2 ?g1 ?g2 ?g1Serial ?g2Serial ( >> ?f1[geo:sfEquals->?f2] :- >> Or ( >> # feature – feature rule >> And ( >> ?f1[geo:hasDefaultGeometry->?g1] >> ?f2[geo:hasDefaultGeometry->?g2] >> ?g1[geo:gmlLiteral->?g1Serial] >> ?g2[geo:gmlLiteral->?g2Serial] >> External(geof:sfEquals (?g1Serial,?g2Serial)) >> ) >> # feature – geometry rule >> And ( >> ?f1[geo:hasDefaultGeometry->?g1] >> ?g1[geo:gmlLiteral->?g1Serial] >> ?f2[geo:gmlLiteral->?g2Serial] >> External(geof:sfEquals (?g1Serial,?g2Serial)) >> ) >> # geometry - feature rule >> And ( >> ?f2[geo:hasDefaultGeometry->?g2] >> ?f1[geo:gmlLiteral->?g1Serial] >> ?g2[geo:gmlLiteral->?g2Serial] >> External(geof:sfEquals (?g1Serial,?g2Serial)) >> ) >> # geometry - geometry rule >> And ( >> ?f1[geo:gmlLiteral->?g1Serial] >> ?f2[geo:gmlLiteral->?g2Serial] >> External(geof:sfEquals (?g1Serial,?g2Serial)) >> ) >> ) >> ) >> >> # geo:sfEquals >> Forall ?f1 ?f2 ?g1 ?g2 ?g1Serial ?g2Serial ( >> ?f1[geo:sfEquals->?f2] :- >> Or ( >> # feature – feature rule >> And ( >> ?f1[geo:hasDefaultGeometry->?g1] >> ?f2[geo:hasDefaultGeometry->?g2] >> ?g1[geo:wktLiteral->?g1Serial] >> ?g2[geo:wktLiteral->?g2Serial] >> External(geof:sfEquals (?g1Serial,?g2Serial)) >> ) >> # feature – geometry rule >> And ( >> ?f1[geo:hasDefaultGeometry->?g1] >> ?g1[geo:wktLiteral->?g1Serial] >> ?f2[geo:wktLiteral->?g2Serial] >> External(geof:sfEquals (?g1Serial,?g2Serial)) >> ) >> # geometry - feature rule >> And ( >> ?f2[geo:hasDefaultGeometry->?g2] >> ?f1[geo:wktLiteral->?g1Serial] >> ?g2[geo:wktLiteral->?g2Serial] >> External(geof:sfEquals (?g1Serial,?g2Serial)) >> ) >> # geometry - geometry rule >> And ( >> ?f1[geo:wktLiteral->?g1Serial] >> ?f2[geo:wktLiteral->?g2Serial] >> External(geof:sfEquals (?g1Serial,?g2Serial)) >> ) >> ) >> ) >> >> # repetition of the ForAll elements for all GeoSPARQL relations >> >> ) >> ) >> ---------- >> >> Any further comments on our use of RIF would be greatly appreciated too! >> >> Regards, >> >> Nicholas >> -- >> Dr Nicholas J. Car >> Data Systems Architect >> SURROUND Australia Pty Ltd >> >> GeoSPARQL QG member >> >> References >> --------------- >> [1] GeoSPARQL 1.0. http://www.opengis.net/doc/IS/geosparql/1.0. See >> Clause 11, p 30. >> [2] None of the other validators listed at >> https://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Implementations seem to be online >> other than perhaps RIF4J >> [3] http://rif4j.sourceforge.net/ >> [4] https://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_In_RDF#Namespaces >> [5] https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml >> [6] >> https://www.w3.org/2005/rules/test/repository/tc/Class_Membership/Class_Membership-premise.rifps >> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2021 10:14:58 UTC