--- a/rdf-concepts/index.html	Mon Nov 21 20:28:23 2011 +0000
+++ b/rdf-concepts/index.html	Mon Nov 21 20:57:59 2011 +0000
@@ -286,7 +286,7 @@
 <section id="managing-graphs">
     <h3>Merging and Managing RDF Graphs</h3>
 
-    <p class="note">This section should explain terminology around working
+    <p class="issue">This section should explain terminology around working
     with multiple graphs, and explain the fact that graphs merge easily.
     This will be added once the Working Group has finalised a design.</p>
 
@@ -584,22 +584,13 @@
     Given two blank nodes, it is 
     possible to determine whether or not they are the same.</p>
 
-    <div class="note">
-    <p>Some concrete syntaxes for RDF use 
+    <p class="note">Some concrete syntaxes for RDF use 
     <dfn title="blank node identifier">blank node identifiers</dfn>
     to allow several statements to use the same
     blank node. A blank node identifier is a local identifier that can be
     distinguished from IRIs and literals. Such blank node identifiers are
     <em>not</em> part of the RDF abstract syntax, but are entirely
     dependent on the particular concrete syntax used.</p>
-
-    <p>When graphs are merged, their blank nodes must be kept distinct
-    if meaning is to be preserved; this may call for re-allocation of
-    blank node identifiers.</p>
-    </div>
-
-    <p class="issue">Should “Graph merge” be defined in this spec?
-    If not, then the previous paragraph could just as well go.</p>
 </section>
 
 
@@ -635,7 +626,8 @@
     <pre>http://example.com/.well-known/genid/d26a2d0e98334696f4ad70a677abc1f6</pre>
 
     <p class="issue">IETF registration of the <code>genid</code> name is
-    currently in progress.</p>
+    currently in progress. This is
+    <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/82">ACTION-82</a>.</p>
 
     <p class="note">RFC 5785 [[WELL-KNOWN]] only specifies well-known URIs,
     not IRIs. For the purpose of this document, a well-known IRI is any
@@ -778,8 +770,17 @@
 <section id="xsd-datatypes">
     <h3>The XML Schema Built-in Datatypes</h3>
 
-    <p class="issue"><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/66">ISSUE-66</a>
-    tracks the integration of new XSD 1.1 datatypes.</p></p>
+    <p class="issue">XML Schema 1.1 added a number of new datatypes:
+    <code><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#dateTimeStamp">xsd:dateTimeStamp</a></code>,
+    <code><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#dayTimeDuration">xsd:dayTimeDuration</a></code>,
+    <code><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#yearMonthDuration">xsd:yearMonthDuration</a></code>, and
+    <code><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#precisionDecimal">xsd:precisionDecimal</a></code>.
+    Some of them are already used in RIF and OWL2. They should possibly be added
+    here as well. Also,
+    <code><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#duration">xsd:duration</a></code>
+    is noted below as being unsuitable for use in RDF. The design of the type
+    has changed, so this should be reviewed. This is
+    <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/66">ISSUE-66</a>.</p>
 
     <p><a title="IRI">IRIs</a> of the form
     <code>http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#<em>xxx</em></code>,
@@ -889,9 +890,11 @@
     Such content is indicated in an RDF graph using a typed literal
     whose datatype is a special built-in datatype <code>rdf:XMLLiteral</code>.
     This allows the inclusion of text that contains markup, such as
-    XHTML [[XHTML10]].</p>
+    XHTML [[XHTML11]].</p>
 
-    <p class="issue">Update the XHTML 1.0 reference to something more recent?</p>
+    <p class="issue">Should RDF define an HTML datatype? Arguably this would
+    be more useful for including markup in text. This is
+    <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/63">ISSUE-63</a>.</p>
 
     <p><code><dfn>rdf:XMLLiteral</dfn></code> is defined as follows.</p>
    
@@ -1087,6 +1090,14 @@
         <p>The design presented here should be considered a straw man proposal at this point. It is based on RDF Datasets as <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#rdfDataset">defined in SPARQL 1.1</a>.</p>
     </div>
 
+    <p class="note">When graphs are merged, their blank nodes must be kept
+    distinct if meaning is to be preserved; this may call for re-allocation of
+    blank node identifiers.</p>
+    </div>
+
+    <p class="issue">Should “Graph merge” be defined in this spec?
+    If not, then the previous note could just as well go. This will be
+    decided once a multigraph design has been decided upon.</p>
 </section>