csarven left a comment (w3ctag/design-reviews#1159) We may have misunderstood the request so happy to be corrected. The remarks were entirely about what is mentioned and referenced from rdf12-concepts. That said, we can indeed close the issue. [RDF 1.2 Concepts and Abstract Data Model](https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/)'s [Abstract](https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#abstract) states "explicitly conveying the version of RDF" and links to a whole section on [RDF Version Anouncement](https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#section-version-announcement) as well as being listed under [Changes between RDF 1.1 and RDF 1.2](https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#changes-12). We figured this was a worthwhile feature to comment on. But if the version announcement in rdf12-concepts is considered to be non-critical, e.g., because it is non-normative (appearing under Introduction) or because it is only meaningful in the context of concrete RDF syntax specifications, then that's okay as well. That said, the WG may wish to treat the TAG's feedback on version announcement as applicable to all concrete RDF syntaxes that follow rdf12-concepts. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1159#issuecomment-3962314703 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1159/3962314703@github.com>
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2026 21:52:44 UTC