Define URIs for versions

[afs]

From the discussion w3c/sparql-query#242 (comment)

The request is to have URIs for the versions defined by the RDF & SPARQL Working group.

The proposal is to put a controlled vocabulary of for versions into the RDF namespace document, and then link to these constants from, e.g. the SPARQL Service Description document definition of sd:SPARQL12Query.

Possible addition to http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#

rdf:version-1.2 a rdfs:Resource ;
    rdfs:label "1.2" ;
    rdfs:comment "Version 1.2" ;
    rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> ;
    .

rdf:version-1.2-basic
    rdfs:label "1.2-basic" ;
    rdfs:comment "Version 1.2-basic" ;
    rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> ;
    .

rdf:version-1.1
    rdfs:label "1.1" ;
    rdfs:comment "Version 1.1" ;
    rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> ;
    .

This is not to replace the use of strings in RDF and SPARQL syntaxes. As previously discussed, alignment with being used for HTTP header parameters for media types (version=), the visual convenience of strings, and being able to simply text search for VERSION without parsing were factors. e.g. VERSION on the first line would need a full URI, or if later in the file, prefix management would be need to be applied.

rdfs:label is defined as "A human-readable name for the subject."

It may be useful to add:

rdf:version-1.0
    rdfs:label "1.0" ;
    rdfs:comment "Version 1.0" ;
    rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> ;
    .

for completeness.

[TallTed]

the SPARQL Service Description document definition of sd:SPARQ12Query

I think that last is a misspelling of sd:SPARQL12Query...

I suggest that the rdfs:comment for all of these versions should include what it is a version of, i.e., "RDF Version 1.0", "RDF Version 1.1", etc.

Much like the SPARQL versions are identified as sd:SPARQL11Update, even though the URIs are opaque by definition, it might be helpful to also change the final element of these RDF version URIs, e.g., rdf:RDF-version-1.0 or rdf:RDF-1.0 or similar.

[afs]

I suggest that the rdfs:comment for all of these versions should include what it is a version of, i.e., "RDF Version 1.0", "RDF Version 1.1", etc.

Much like the SPARQL versions are identified as sd:SPARQL11Update, even though the URIs are opaque by definition, it might be helpful to also change the final element of these RDF version URIs, e.g., rdf:RDF-version-1.0 or rdf:RDF-1.0 or similar.

This is a set of terms for the version, not the version applied to RDF or SPARQL.

An alternative is a datatype with lexical space "1.2", "1.2-basic", "1.1" as another way to build controlled vocabularies in RDF.

    "1.2"^^rdf:version

This gives control of the values - which might relate to part of the original concern.

sd:SPARQL12Query :hasVersion "1.2"^^rdf:version .
sd:SPARQL12Update :hasVersion "1.2"^^rdf:version .

and about RDF somewhere (NS document?).

Then VERSION and version= being strings is quite natural.

[domel]

I would like to express my support for the first option — introducing a controlled vocabulary of version identifiers within the RDF namespace and referencing them via URIs such as rdf:version-1.2, rdf:version-1.1, etc. This approach aligns well with existing practices in the RDF and SPARQL ecosystems and allows for consistent usage in documents such as the SPARQL Service Description.