Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] WG New Spec: RDF 1.2 Semantics (Issue #1160)

csarven left a comment (w3ctag/design-reviews#1160)

The TAG thanks the RDF & SPARQL WG for requesting this review.

The TAG recommends the following:

The section "Substantive changes since RDF 1.1" mentions the deprecation of rdf:PlainLiteral. The recommendation that "rdf:PlainLiteral not be used in RDF" could be clearer.For instance, while the recommendation is clear for RDF 1.2 content producers, it is unclear for consumers encountering RDF 1.1 content. If RDF 1.2 is backward compatible with RDF 1.1, would the expectation be that RDF 1.2 parsers still need to implement rdf:PlainLiteral or handle it in other ways? If this is already documented elsewhere, a reference would be helpful. This point potentially touches on error handling, as also discussed in the review RDF 1.2 Concepts and Abstract Data Model https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1159#issuecomment-3671161845 .

This review reflects the TAG's current assessment and is intended to support the Working Group's next steps. We are happy to discuss further if clarification is needed.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1160#issuecomment-3722957770
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1160/3722957770@github.com>