RE: Better Draft of "What's New in RDF 1.1" Note

Hi David,

On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 5:20 AM, David Wood wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> A better draft of the "What's New in RDF 1.1" Note is now available at
> [1].
> 
> Thanks to Peter for giving me feedback on my first attempt (which
> sucked).  Hopefully this one threads the needle between being useful
> and not duplicating the Primer.
> 
> Can someone please volunteer to review?  Thanks.

I don't have time right now to carefully review it but I've had a brief
look. It looks good overall, just a few remarks/questions/nitpicks:

- Things like rdf:langString should be formatted as code and we should
either define the prefixes somewhere or spell out the complete IRI

- Some references are not real ReSpec references, e.g., [BCP47] and [DOM4].
I think we should also turn most mentions of "RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract
Syntax" to links.

- Isn't RDFa missing in Figure 1? And shouldn't be N-Triples be removed from
RDF 1.0 as it was just a non-normative format to facilitate testing? Do we
really need to highlight the confusing relationship between Turtle,
N-Triples, TriG, and N-Quads?


Hope this helps,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler