Re-introduce prematurely deprecated rdflib typings

[Vinnl]

This reverts commit 974e381, introduced in #39502. That deprecated the type definitions, because a prerelease of rdflib (1.0.7-4) had inadvertently been tagged as latest. That's now been reverted, so the current latest version (again 1.0.6) no longer includes type definitions - this puts the DT ones back. Once 1.0.7 gets released, they can be removed again.

Please fill in this template.

• Use a meaningful title for the pull request. Include the name of the package modified.
• Test the change in your own code. (Compile and run.)
• Add or edit tests to reflect the change. (Run with npm test.)
• Follow the advice from the readme.
• Avoid common mistakes.
• Run npm run lint package-name (or tsc if no tslint.json is present).

Select one of these and delete the others:

If adding a new definition:

• The package does not already provide its own types, or cannot have its .d.ts files generated via --declaration
• If this is for an NPM package, match the name. If not, do not conflict with the name of an NPM package.
• Create it with dts-gen --dt, not by basing it on an existing project.
• Represents shape of module/library correctly
• tslint.json should be present and it shouldn't have any additional or disabling of rules. Just content as { "extends": "dtslint/dt.json" }. If for reason the some rule need to be disabled, disable it for that line using // tslint:disable-next-line [ruleName] and not for whole package so that the need for disabling can be reviewed.
• tsconfig.json should have noImplicitAny, noImplicitThis, strictNullChecks, and strictFunctionTypes set to true.

[typescript-bot]

👋 Hi there! I’ve run some quick measurements against master and your PR. These metrics should help the humans reviewing this PR gauge whether it might negatively affect compile times or editor responsiveness for users who install these typings.

Let’s review the numbers, shall we?

These typings are for a package that doesn’t yet exist on master, so I don’t have anything to compare against yet! In the future, I’ll be able to compare PRs to rdflib with its source on master.

Comparison details 📊

Batch compilation
Type count	10392
Assignability cache size	34592
Language service measurements
Samples taken	52
Identifiers in tests	52
getCompletionsAtPosition
Mean duration (ms)	328.8
Mean CV	14.3%
Worst duration (ms)	430.6
Worst identifier	store
getQuickInfoAtPosition
Mean duration (ms)	319.0
Mean CV	14.6%
Worst duration (ms)	404.2
Worst identifier	statementsMatching
System information
Node version	v12.14.1
CPU count	2
CPU speed	2.095 GHz
CPU model	Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8171M CPU @ 2.60GHz
CPU Architecture	x64
Memory	6.8 GiB
Platform	linux
Release	4.15.0-1066-azure

[typescript-bot]

@Vinnl Thank you for submitting this PR!

Because this is a new definition, a DefinitelyTyped maintainer will be reviewing this PR in the next few days once the Travis CI build passes.

In the meantime, if the build fails or a merge conflict occurs, I'll let you know. Have a nice day!

[peterblazejewicz]

LGTM!
context: linkeddata/rdflib.js#369

[typescript-bot]

We've gotten sign-off from a reviewer 👏. A maintainer will soon review this PR and merge it if there are no issues. If it shouldn't be merged yet, please leave a comment saying so and we'll wait. Thank you for contributing to DefinitelyTyped!

[jessetrinity]

remove from not needed types?

DefinitelyTyped/notNeededPackages.json

Line 3802 in 2eebcb4

"libraryName": "rdflib",

[typescript-bot]

@Vinnl One or more reviewers has requested changes. Please address their comments. I'll be back once they sign off or you've pushed new commits or comments. Thank you!

[Vinnl]

@jessetrinity Huh, good catch. Apparently it was moved around in a later commit, which is why the revert did not catch it.

I manually removed it now.

[typescript-bot]

🔔 @jessetrinity - Thanks for your review of this PR! Can you please look at the new code and update your review status if appropriate?