Re: switch to 1.2 for TR/rdf-concepts and TR/rdf-semantics

good morning;

> On 14. Apr 2026, at 10:56, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> On 13/04/2026 16:23, James Anderson wrote:
>> good afternoon;
>> 
>>> On 13. Apr 2026, at 14:45, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> now that RDF 1.2 Concepts and RDF 1.2 Semantics are published as Candidate Recommendation, our webmaster suggested to me that we may want to have the "version-less" URLs [1,2] point to the 1.2 version (Candidate Rec) rather than the 1.1 version (Rec).
>> why would one want to create a situation where the document content version is inconsistent?
> 
> I realize I forgot to add the links "[1]" and "[2]" in the body of my email, which may have created confusion. Let me clarify:
> 
> Consider the URLs we have for RDF Concepts:
> 
> * https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts → serves the latest "RDF 1.1 Concepts" (Recommendation)
> * https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts → serves the latest "RDF 1.2 Concepts" (currently Candidate Recommendation)
> * https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts → serves the latest recommendation, i.e. "RDF 1.1 Concepts"
> 
> Different working groups have different policies for the "version-less" URL (the latter).
> * Some groups have it serve the latest version of the document, even if it is a Working Draft
> * Some groups have it serve the latest "stable" version of the document (that's what we chose)
> 
> The suggestion is to consider that a Candidate Recommendation is "stable" enough to update the version-less URL. This is not inconsistent, just a slight variation in what we mean by "stable".

i am concerned with an abstract characterization.
i am concerned with the content.

---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | https://dydra.com

Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2026 09:05:38 UTC