Re: No reference to RDF 1.0

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)
>
>

Received on Monday, 24 November 2014 14:13:20 UTC