Add list of previous work that contributed to the science.

[msporny]

This PR attempts to address issue #19 by adding a history of previous work that contributed to the science that this specification is based upon.

---

Preview | Diff

[gkellogg]

My earlier comment was hidden:

This (The CG report reference) is effectively the same as the [CCG-RDC-FINAL] reference. I'm fine for spelling it out, but be may want to make the two different references consistent.

The source for CCG-RDC-FINAL is in common/biblio.js.

[davidlehn]

• It does bother me a little bit that there is a nice structured localBiblio/specref system here and respec can render that uniformly and nicely, and yet these are free form text. is there is a way to call the render function for a specific entries so this could be a presentation that aligns with the references style but in a simple list?
• The above might be hard. I'd suggest at least normalizing style for things like dates as "2010" or "(2010)", and a trailing period or not.

[peacekeeper]

Looks good to me..

[iherman]

ON the remark of @davidlehn (#199 (comment)) while it is correct that a proper, scholarly reference system would be nice, let us not spend our time finding one and merging with respec...

Alternatively, we could feed all those references into a system like Zotero, and then spit out a properly formatted references. But that would take probably too much time for a one off occasion

I agree that the references should be uniform, though. IEEE has a document on citation format: https://ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/wp-content/uploads/IEEE-Reference-Guide.pdf, and I am sure that Springer, Elsevier or others have the same. I would think just pick one of those and reformat all references (yes, by hand...) is the shortest and the quickest way of solving this.

[iherman]

• I realize that the reference list is a bit arbitrary; I am not sure where it comes from. For this community, I wonder whether it is important to add the old, graph-theory references that were written even pre-RDF days/ I would think that we can safely prune the list by removing the first part up until the entry from TimBL and DanC, as well as removing the entry from Gross and Yellen. Just concentrate on specifically RDF & Co papers is enough.
• The references to Adrian sound a bit strange ("Web 0, 0, Article 00"). The explainer document's references might help.
• I was wondering about adding the paper of Jeremy, Pat, Chris, and Patrick. One thing we did here compared to many other references is to create an algorithm for datasets and not only graphs, and that paper is one of the first that introduced the notion of named graph with a specific section devoted to signatures.

[yamdan]

According to @iherman 's #199 (comment) , I tried formatting the list made by Manu in my Zotero into the Springer-LNCS format. Some of the references are failing to fetch metadata because they are not scholarly articles. If this LNCS format is okay, I can try making the other ones manually. What do you think?

• Corneil, D., Goldberg, M.: A non-factorial algorithm for canonical numbering of a graph. Journal of Algorithms. 5, 345–362 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-6774(84)90015-4.
• Weisfeiler, B.: On Construction and Identification of Graphs. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (1976). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0089374.
• Babai, L., Erdős, P., Selkow, S.M.: Random Graph Isomorphism. SIAM J. Comput. 9, 628–635 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1137/0209047.
• Hoffmann, C.M. ed: Group-Theoretic Algorithms and Graph Isomorphism. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-11493-9.
• Corneil, D.G., Gotlieb, C.C.: An Efficient Algorithm for Graph Isomorphism. J. ACM. 17, 51–64 (1970). https://doi.org/10.1145/321556.321562.
• Sutcliffe, G., Suttner, C.: The TPTP Problem Library. Journal of Automated Reasoning. 21, 177–203 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005806324129.
• Grohe, M.: Isomorphism testing for embeddable graphs through definability. In: Proceedings of the thirty-second annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. pp. 63–72. ACM, Portland Oregon USA (2000). https://doi.org/10.1145/335305.335313.
• (W.W. Tsang)
• (Tim Berners-Lee and Dan Connolly)
• (Jeremy J. Carroll)
• Carroll, J.J.: Signing RDF Graphs. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., and Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) The Semantic Web - ISWC 2003. pp. 369–384. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39718-2_24.
• Gross, J.L., Yellen, J., Zhang, P.: Handbook of Graph Theory, Second Edition. Chapman & Hall/CRC (2013).
• (C. Sayers, A. Karp)
• Tummarello, G., Morbidoni, C., Bachmann-Gmür, R., Erling, O.: RDFSync: Efficient Remote Synchronization of RDF Models. In: Aberer, K., Choi, K.-S., Noy, N., Allemang, D., Lee, K.-I., Nixon, L., Golbeck, J., Mika, P., Maynard, D., Mizoguchi, R., Schreiber, G., and Cudré-Mauroux, P. (eds.) The Semantic Web. pp. 537–551. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-76298-0_39.
• Oren, E., Delbru, R., Catasta, M., Cyganiak, R., Stenzhorn, H., Tummarello, G.: Sindice.com: a document-oriented lookup index for open linked data. International Journal of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies. 3, 37–52 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMSO.2008.021204.
• Fisteus, J.A., Fernández García, N., Sánchez Fernández, L., Delgado Kloos, C.: Hashing and canonicalizing Notation 3 graphs. Journal of Computer and System Sciences. 76, 663–685 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2010.01.003.
• Kasten, A., Scherp, A., Schauß, P.: A Framework for Iterative Signing of Graph Data on the Web. In: Presutti, V., d’Amato, C., Gandon, F., d’Aquin, M., Staab, S., and Tordai, A. (eds.) The Semantic Web: Trends and Challenges. pp. 146–160. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07443-6_11.
• Hogan, A.: Canonical Forms for Isomorphic and Equivalent RDF Graphs: Algorithms for Leaning and Labelling Blank Nodes. ACM Trans. Web. 11, 22:1-22:62 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3068333.
• (Rachel Arnold, Dave Longley)
• Tomaszuk, D., Glab, S., Turobos, F., Pawlik, T., Kuzinski, D., Sopek, M.: Interwoven Hash of Vicious Circle Free Graph. In: 2022 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain (Blockchain). pp. 449–454. IEEE, Espoo, Finland (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/Blockchain55522.2022.00069.

[iherman]

@yamdan, thank you. That looks perfect. Springer's LNCS format is as good as any, the only point that we should be consistent.

[msporny]

This (The CG report reference) is effectively the same as the [CCG-RDC-FINAL] reference. I'm fine for spelling it out, but be may want to make the two different references consistent.

One of them is the proof of correctness and the other is the CCG-RDC-FINAL document -- two documents with very different content, unless I'm missing something?

The above might be hard. I'd suggest at least normalizing style for things like dates as "2010" or "(2010)", and a trailing period or not.

Yes, I contemplated added Specref entries for every one of those papers... it would take hours to do that (which I don't have). Others are welcome to add all of the entries to specref (but again, doing that for just this spec doesn't seem like a good use of time).

So, it's not easy, no... the references were collected over the years from citations in papers that were published in journals (each journal used a slightly different format). I just used the format used in each journal.

I tried formatting the list made by Manu in my Zotero into the Springer-LNCS format.

Thank you for doing that @yamdan ... any chance you could raise those changes as a change set against this PR? I won't have the spare cycles in the coming weeks to go back through and re-format everything.

I'm happy for someone else to take over the reformatting for this PR at this point... it's all editorial work.

[philarcher]

I'm perfectly happy with the list of previous work - and I am glad it's in the spec. It shows that this hasn't come out of nowhere and has a long pedigree. One minor gripe - and my apologies if this seems more than a little self-serving - but there is a small group of people who turned up at more or less every meeting who discussed the spec as it evolved and got it through the Rec Track. I'd say they are: Pierre-Antoine, Ivan, Gregg, David, Dave, Kazue, Manu, Ted, Dan, Markus, self. Of course many of those people have, rightly, been credited already but, maybe there's a little space somewhere?

[gkellogg]

One minor gripe - and my apologies if this seems more than a little self-serving - but there is a small group of people who turned up at more or less every meeting who discussed the spec as it evolved and got it through the Rec Track. I'd say they are: Pierre-Antoine, Ivan, Gregg, David, Dave, Kazue, Manu, Ted, Dan, Markus, self. Of course many of those people have, rightly, been credited already but, maybe there's a little space somewhere?

This would usually be added to the Acknowledgements section, but as this is the editors acknowledging others who were helpful in the work. We could add to the end of (or after) the first paragraph the specific contributions of the chairs, Pierre-Antoine, Ivan, Dave, Kazue, Manu, and Ted. Note that Dave and Manu are already called out as participants of the CG.

[gkellogg]

Thank you for doing that @yamdan ... any chance you could raise those changes as a change set against this PR? I won't have the spare cycles in the coming weeks to go back through and re-format everything.

I can attempt to make those changes by pushing into your branch (which I believe I can do). It's easier if the branch is on this repo, but possible I believe.

I'm happy for someone else to take over the reformatting for this PR at this point... it's all editorial work.

Thanks for getting this far. We still may want to trim the references, as @iherman suggested.

[davidlehn]

Local biblio and respec rendering may have been easier.

[yamdan]

Thank you @gkellogg for updating the list. I found that a few diacritics were removed when I processed it through Zotero...

[iherman]

It looks fine to me now, except for my remark on pruning. I won't lie down the road on this, but it looks unnecessary, maybe even presumptuous to me here (there are tons of papers on graph theory, why picking just these few at this point?).

[philarcher]

Thanks for the additional work here. Much appreciated.

[gkellogg]

It looks fine to me now, except for my remark on pruning. I won't lie down the road on this, but it looks unnecessary, maybe even presumptuous to me here (there are tons of papers on graph theory, why picking just these few at this point?).

I did the format update without pushing a decision on pruning. IMO, this sort of depends on what we're trying to achieve. The longer list is probably not practical for people really wanting to dive deep into the history, as it's generally broad, and someone really doing a deep dive might be expected to look at some of the pre-RDF references. Trimming entries prior to RDF may be more concise. This could potentially be a separate issue, and we can merge the work as is, and re-visit the notion of pruning separately.

[TallTed]

A few small things