Re: No reference to RDF 1.0

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Antoine Zimmermann <
antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> wrote:

> Jonathan,
>
> (this is not an official answer from the WG)
>
> The email below by Dan Brickley explains that RDF 1.0 was not called like
> this before the RDF 1.1 working group came into existence.  So, there is no
> document that describes something called RDF 1.0.  However, what we mean by
> this is the RDF specifications from 2004.
>
> RDF 1.1 Primer has a reference to the 2004's RDF Primer. You are right
> that a reference to it in "What's new in RDF 1.1" would be relevant (or
> perhaps to "Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract
> Syntax").
>
> Nonetheless, please consider that the document says:
>
> "This document is meant to serve as a guide for those already familiar
> with RDF 1.0 who wish to understand changes in version 1.1."
>
> So, the reader should know already what it is talking about. Those who
> don't know should not read this document and just start with the RDF 1.1
> Primer or RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract syntax.
>

Thanks for the errata update, but with all due respect, I think what you
say here is wrong, and it sounds like an excuse. There is a sentence with a
referring term 'RDF 1.0' and there is a perfectly good reference, but no
way for the reader to make the connection - especially since the reader may
know it under a different name. The reader will have no way of knowing
*anything* about RDF 1.0 (or RDF versionless), such as whether it is
something they already know about, unless they know what is being talked
about.

It is not just the Changes note that has this problem; 'RDF 1.0' occurs in
the Concepts and Semantics TRs as well.

I see now that Concepts and Semantics both have a 'previous
recommendations' header that I missed (I started out looking for 2004 RDF,
not 'RDF 1.0'). However I think I am justified in missing it since I was
searching for 'RDF 1.0', 'supersedes', and things like that, scanning the
'status of this document' and introduction sections, and reading the
references lists and the 'previous versions' header. 'Previous
recommendations' was not in my search image.

Jonathan


>
>
> Best,
> --AZ.
>
> Le 24/11/2014 15:12, Dan Brickley a écrit :
>
>> I don't believe either the 1997-1999 RDF Model and Syntax WG or the
>> later RDF Core WG officially called their work "1.0". Either could
>> make a case for that label. We framed RDFCore as a cleanup of the
>> (premature) 1999 REC,
>>
>> See http://www.w3.org/2002/11/swv2/charters/RDFCoreWGCharter
>>
>> Excerpt, "Implementor feedback concerning the RDF Model and Syntax
>> Recommendation points to the need for a number of fixes,
>> clarifications and improvements to the specification of RDF's abstract
>> model and XML syntax. There is also considerable interest in the
>> exploration of alternative XML serialization mechanisms for RDF data.
>> The role of the RDF Core WG is to prepare the way for such work by
>> stabilizing the core RDF specifications. The RDF Core WG is neither
>> chartered to develop a new RDF syntax, nor to reformulate the RDF
>> model. However, the group is expected to re-articulate the RDF model
>> and syntax specification in such a way as to better facilitate future
>> work on alternative XML encodings for RDF."
>>
>> That said the original RDFS work (from the 1998-2000 RDF Schema WG, a
>> distinct WG) did use "1.0" terminology, however we never got the spec
>> to REC in the 1st WG, only under RDF Core. Closest we got was CR:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/ ... then bogged down
>> by turf conflict with XML Schema.
>>
>> So 1.0 is really rather hazily defined even if 1.1 is clear :)
>>
>> On 24 November 2014 at 14:01, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Forwarding to the comments list. I will add it to the errata.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> --
>>> http://about.me/david_wood
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>> Date: November 21, 2014 at 14:27:58 EST
>>> Subject: No reference to RDF 1.0
>>> From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
>>> To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
>>>
>>>
>>> This document: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-new/  makes references to
>>> something called "RDF version 1.0" without any explanation or reference.
>>> This seems to me like a serious flaw in the document. There is no way to
>>> figure out what this document is even talking about.
>>>
>>> In fact I am having a very hard time finding a pointer to RDF 1.0 since
>>> none
>>> of the RDF 1.1 documents provide a pointer to it, as far as I can tell.
>>>
>>> I propose that a reference to RDF 1.0 be added to the errata.
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>> (lazily writing to you directly to avoid the hassle of joining
>>> public-rdf-comments)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> --
> Antoine Zimmermann
> ISCOD - Institut Henri Fayol
> École des Mines de Saint-Étienne
> 158 cours Fauriel
> CS 62362
> 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
> France
> Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
> Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
> http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
>