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 18:54:39 +0100
To: "'David Wood'" <david@3roundstones.com>
Cc: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00d501cef69a$18a228c0$49e67a40$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 6:29 PM, David Wood wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2013, at 07:53, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > 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.

OK, fine for me.


> > - Isn't RDFa missing in Figure 1?
> 
> Fixed.  Yes, I caught that after sending my email.  Sorry.

Shouldn't it also be in the left column, i.e., RDF 1.0?


> > 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.

Well, I think that's a strange point of view and people won't find an
earlier REC if they look for it. But I'm fine with it if the WG thinks
that's the right thing to do.


> > 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 :)

OK, can live with it :-)


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2013 17:55:33 UTC

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