W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2013

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

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 13:53:33 +0100
To: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Cc: "'David Wood'" <david@3roundstones.com>
Message-ID: <01e101cef670$00a47130$01ed5390$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
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 Lanthaler

Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2013 12:54:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:36 UTC