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

On Dec 11, 2013, at 07:53, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:

> 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

Done.

> and we should
> either define the prefixes somewhere or spell out the complete IRI

Done.

> 
> - Some references are not real ReSpec references, e.g., [BCP47] and [DOM4].

Fixed.

> I think we should also turn most mentions of "RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract
> Syntax" to links.

The document looks quite messy if that is done.  I suggest that the reference has been made clearly.

> 
> - Isn't RDFa missing in Figure 1?

Fixed.  Yes, I caught that after sending my email.  Sorry.

> And shouldn't be N-Triples be removed from
> RDF 1.0 as it was just a non-normative format to facilitate testing?

I don’t think so.  The WG discussed this at some length, possibly before you joined, and decided that N-Triples does have the status of a formal syntax, even if it was implicitly defined in the 2004 test cases.

> Do we
> really need to highlight the confusing relationship between Turtle,
> N-Triples, TriG, and N-Quads?

Yes, I think so, because they are confusing :)

Thanks for the review!

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood



> 
> 
> Hope this helps,
> Markus
> 
> 
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler