--- a/rdf-concepts/index.html	Sat Nov 10 18:07:18 2012 -0500
+++ b/rdf-concepts/index.html	Tue Nov 13 14:53:57 2012 +0000
@@ -202,7 +202,7 @@
     and strings; the term is synonymous with “entity”.
     The resource denoted by an IRI is called its <a>referent</a>, and the
     resource denoted by a literal is called its
-    <a title="literal value">value</a>. Literals have
+    <a title="literal value">literal value</a>. Literals have
     <a title="datatype">datatypes</a> that define the range of possible
     values, such as strings, numbers, and dates. A special kind of literals,
     <a>language-tagged strings</a>, denote plain-text strings in a
@@ -306,7 +306,7 @@
     <code>http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral</code>
     would be abbreviated as <code>rdf:XMLLiteral</code>.
     Note however that these abbreviations are <em>not</em> valid IRIs,
-    and MUST NOT be used in contexts where IRIs are expected.
+    and must not be used in contexts where IRIs are expected.
     Namespace IRIs and namespace prefixes are <em>not</em> a formal part of the
     RDF data model. They are merely a syntactic convenience for
     abbreviating IRIs.</p>
@@ -470,16 +470,8 @@
     API specifications, and query languages.
     Implementations cannot directly conform to
     <em>RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax</em>,
-    but can conform to such other specifications that are based on the
-    RDF data model.</p>
-
-    <p>Another specification conforms to
-    <em>RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax</em> if it defines operations
-    in terms of <a title="RDF graph">RDF graphs</a>
-    or <a title="RDF dataset">RDF datasets</a>, and if any use of
-    terminology defined in normative sections of
-    <em>RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax</em>
-    is consistent with its definitions and conformance requirements.</p>
+    but can conform to such other specifications that normatively
+    reference terms defined here.</p>
 </section>
 
 
@@ -665,6 +657,8 @@
 <section id="section-blank-nodes">
     <h2>Blank Nodes</h2>
 
+    <p class="issue">There is no consensus that the current state of this section is an improvement over <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-rdf11-concepts-20120605/#section-blank-nodes">its previous state</a>. This is <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/107">ISSUE-107</a>.</p>
+
     <p>The <dfn title="blank node">blank nodes</dfn> in an <a>RDF graph</a>
     are drawn from some arbitrary infinite set that fulfils
     the following conditions:</p>
@@ -1176,7 +1170,7 @@
     <a title="RDF-compatible XSD types">RDF-compatible XSD type</a>
     named <code>xsd:<em>xxx</em></code>.<p>
 
-    <p>Specifications that <a href="#conformance">conform to RDF</a>
+    <p>Other specifications that 
     MAY impose additional constraints on the <a>datatype map</a>,
     for example, require support for certain datatypes.</p>
 
@@ -1377,6 +1371,7 @@
   <em>RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax</em>.</p>
 
   <ul>
+    <li>2012-11-13: Remove the notion of other specs conforming to this spec from the <a href="#conformance">Conformance</a> section. This spec simply provides definitions that other specs can use.</li>
     <li>2012-11-09: Updated the <a href="#section-dataset">section on RDF datasets</a> to reflect <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-29">various WG resolutions</a> around named graphs</li>
     <li>2012-11-09: Re-wrote the <a href="#section-blank-nodes">section on Blank Nodes</a>, including a definition of “fresh blank nodes” and an extended Note on standardizing apart blank node IDs</li>
     <li>2012-11-09: Moved all informative material about changes between RDF 2004 and RDF 1.1 to a <a href="#changes">new appendix</a></li>