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

Hi Markus,

On Dec 11, 2013, at 12:54, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:

> 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?


Well, the rest of this Note documents the changes from 2004 to present.  RDFa appeared in the middle, so I don’t think so.

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


> 
> 
>>> 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