- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 12:15:10 -0500
- To: Nicholas Car <nicholas.car@surroundaustralia.com>, Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.stonybrook.edu>
- Cc: public-rif-dev@w3.org, geosparql.swg@lists.opengeospatial.org, cawelty@gmail.com
- Message-ID: <edd038cb-9288-34a8-f03d-0c4df45ea446@w3.org>
On 1/6/21 5:14 AM, Nicholas Car wrote:
> 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.
>
Turns out I was actually reading this thread!
To my eye, it looks like I dropped the ball with the final IETF step on
getting rif+xml registered. I'm looking into how to best fix that now.
On the Presentation Syntax, what I recall is that there's no media type
for it because it's not intended for interchange. The idea was you're
supposed to do the interchange using XML.
I know it's a bit weird, but there was a decision made early on,
reflected in the charter
<https://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/charter.html#xml-syntax> text, "The
primary normative syntax of the language must be an XML syntax. Users
are expected to work with tools or rule languages which are transformed
to and from this format."
(Other folks wanted things like N3 to be in-scope for the group, but
that wasn't the path selected during the chartering process.)
In practice the PS was needed, but we didn't formalize the language very
thoroughly, and didn't debate the design nearly as much as we would have
if it were to be standardized for interchange. See:
* https://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/56 Should the
presentation syntax have a simplied form in addition to the verbose form
* https://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/77 Presentation Syntax
and how to express the test cases
These were easy issues because we knew the PS didn't matter very much.
Does that make sense?
If you want a media type for it now, I'm not sure the best path for
that, but I'm also looking into it.
My apologies for getting the media-type registration process wrong, way
back when.
-- Sandro
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 17:15:15 UTC