Re: Request for extension of feedback period for RDF 1.2 Concepts and Semantics

Dear Michael,

(Replying as myself, not representing the working group; which is
CC:ed for transparency.)

In the hope that it might help your assessment of relevance to OWL,
I'd like to point to this draft note [1] on interpretation of RDF
structures (written per my action [2]), with a main focus on the new
RDF 1.2 Proposition concept (which is the class of resources denoted
by triples). It defines and shows (in section 4) how entailing the
basic form [3] of a proposition would enable usage of OWL to formalize
new kinds of interoperability patterns between descriptions using
different RDF vocabularies.

All the best,
Niklas

[1]: <https://niklasl.github.io/rdf-struct-patterns/spec/>
[2]: <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/150>
[3]: <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-interop/>


On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 8:42 AM Michael Schneider <m_schnei@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Dear RDF & SPARQL Working Group members,
>
> I respectfully request an extension of the feedback period for the Call
> for Wide Review of the Candidate Recommendation Snapshots for:
>
> * RDF 1.2 Concepts and Abstract Data Model
> * RDF 1.2 Semantics
>
> I would appreciate additional time to review these documents, with a
> particular focus on the technical aspects of the changes compared to the
> previous versions of RDF, and specifically on understanding their
> potential relevance for a future version of the OWL ontology language. I
> served as the editor of the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics, which was built
> on top of these two RDF specifications (then still in version 1.0).
>
> An extension of one week would allow me to dedicate the upcoming weekend
> to a thorough review and to prepare my feedback.
>
> Best regards
> Michael Schneider
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2026 16:08:59 UTC