--- a/rdf-new/index.html Sun Dec 15 21:00:39 2013 +0100
+++ b/rdf-new/index.html Sun Dec 15 21:54:13 2013 +0100
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
// specification status (e.g. WD, LC, WG-NOTE, etc.). If in doubt use ED.
specStatus: "FPWD",
- noRecTrack: true,
+ // noRecTrack: true,
// the specification's short name, as in http://www.w3.org/TR/short-name/
shortName: "rdf11-new",
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
// if there is an earlier version of this specification at the Recommendation level,
// set this to the shortname of that version. This is optional and not usually
// necessary.
- //prevRecShortname: "rdf-new",
+ // prevRecShortname: "",
// editors, add as many as you like
// only "name" is required
@@ -83,19 +83,17 @@
// throughout the generated specification. The triples generated use vocabulary items
// from the dcterms, foaf, and bibo. The parameter defaults to false.
doRDFa: "1.1",
-
- // alternateFormats: [ { uri: "diff-<li>20130723.html", label: "diff to previous version" } ]
- };
+ };
</script>
<style type="text/css">
figure { text-align: center; }
- img.graph { width: 80%; }
+ img.graph { width: 95%; }
table td, table th { border: 1px solid #ddd; padding: 0.2em 0.5em; }
</style>
</head>
<body>
-<div class="head">
+
<section id="abstract">
<p>The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a language for
@@ -106,11 +104,10 @@
</section>
<section id="sotd">
- The RDF Working Group expects this document to become a Working
- Group Note.
+ <p>The RDF Working Group expects this document to become a Working
+ Group Note.</p>
</section>
-</div>
<section id="section-introduction">
@@ -161,191 +158,167 @@
<section id="section-abstract-syntax">
- <h2>Abstract Syntax</h2>
-
- <section id="identifiers">
-
- <h3>Identifiers</h3>
-
- <p>Identifiers in RDF 1.1 are now IRIs. The following table summarizes specific differences.</p>
-
- <table class="simple">
- <caption>Identifiers in RDF 1.0 and 1.1.</caption>
- <tr>
- <th></th>
- <th>RDF 1.0</th>
- <th>RDF 1.1</th>
- </tr>
- <tr>
- <td>
- Identifiers
- </td>
- <td>
- RDF URI References
- </td>
- <td>
- IRIs
- </td>
- </tr>
- <tr>
- <td>
- Additional characters
- </td>
- <td>
- "<", ">",
- "{", "}", "|", "\", "^",
- "`", ‘"’ (double quote), and " " (space)
- </td>
- <td>
- None; percent-encoding must be used as described in section 2.1 of [[!RFC3986]].
- </td>
- </tr>
- <tr>
- <td>
- Fragment identifiers
- </td>
- <td>
- Fragment identifiers interpreted in accordance with RDF/XML representation.
- </td>
- <td>
- Full IRIs, including possible fragment identifiers, denote a resource.
- </td>
- </tr>
- <tr>
- <td>
- Blank nodes
- </td>
- <td>
- RDF 1.0 makes no reference to any internal structure of blank nodes. Given two
- blank nodes, it is possible to determine whether or not they are the same.
- </td>
- <td>
- Blank node identifiers are local identifiers that are used in some concrete
- RDF syntaxes or RDF store implementations. They are always locally scoped to
- the file or RDF store, and are not persistent or portable identifiers for
- blank nodes. See the section in Concepts and Abstract Syntax regarding
- Skolemization if blank nodes must be shared between implementations.
- </td>
- </tr>
- </table>
-
- </section>
-
- <section id="literals">
-
- <h3>Literals</h3>
-
- <p>The following table summarizes differences in the handling of literals.</p>
+<h2>Abstract Syntax</h2>
+
+<section id="identifiers">
+
+<h3>Identifiers</h3>
+
+<p>Identifiers in RDF 1.1 are now IRIs. The following table
+summarizes specific differences.</p>
+
+<table class="simple">
+ <tablecaption>Identifiers in RDF 1.0 and 1.1.</tablecaption>
+ <tr>
+ <th></th>
+ <th>RDF 1.0</th>
+ <th>RDF 1.1</th>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>Identifiers</td>
+ <td>RDF URI References</td>
+ <td>IRIs</td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>Additional characters</td>
+ <td>
+ "<", ">",
+ "{", "}", "|", "\", "^",
+ "`", ‘"’ (double quote), and " " (space)
+ </td>
+ <td>None; percent-encoding must be used as described in
+ section 2.1 of [[!RFC3986]]. </td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>Fragment identifiers</td>
+ <td>Fragment identifiers interpreted in accordance with RDF/XML representation.
+ </td>
+ <td>Full IRIs, including possible fragment identifiers, denote a resource.
+ </td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>Blank nodes</td>
+ <td>
+ RDF 1.0 makes no reference to any internal structure of blank nodes. Given two
+ blank nodes, it is possible to determine whether or not they are the same.
+ </td>
+ <td>
+ Blank node identifiers are local identifiers that are used in
+ some concrete RDF syntaxes or RDF store implementations. They are
+ always locally scoped to the file or RDF store, and are not
+ persistent or portable identifiers for blank nodes. See the section
+ in Concepts and Abstract Syntax regarding Skolemization if blank
+ nodes must be shared between implementations.
+ </td>
+ </tr>
+</table>
+
+</section>
+
+<section id="literals">
+
+<h3>Literals</h3>
+
+<p>The following table summarizes differences in the handling of literals.</p>
+
+<table class="simple">
+ <tablecaption>Literals in RDF 1.0 and 1.1.</tablecaption>
+ <tr>
+ <th></th>
+ <th>RDF 1.0</th>
+ <th>RDF 1.1</th>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>Language tags</td>
+ <td>Literals with a language tag did not have a datatype URI.</td>
+ <td>Literals with language tags now have the datatype IRI
+ <code>rdf:langString</code>. </td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td rowspan="2">Simple literals</td>
+ <td>Simple literals could appear directly, e.g. "a literal".</td>
+ <td>All literals have datatypes; serializations or other
+ implementations might choose to support syntax for simple literals,
+ but only as synonyms for <code>xsd:string</code> literals.</td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>Control codes in the #x0-#x1F range were permitted.</td>
+ <td>The <code>xsd:string</code> datatype does not permit the
+ #x0 character, and implementations might not permit control codes in
+ the #x1-#x1F range. A literal with type <code>xsd:string</code>
+ containing the #x0 character is ill-typed. </td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>Language tags</td>
+ <td>Permitted language tags that adhered to the generic
+ tag/subtag syntax of language tags, but were not well-formed
+ according to [[!BCP47]]. </td>
+ <td>Language tags must be well-formed according to [[!BCP47]].</td>
+ </tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>Planned updates to DOM version 4 [[!DOM4]] are not complete as of
+this writing. The Working Group decided to
+follow the changes to the DOM in order to support the
+new datatype <code>rdf:HTML</code>.
+The unfinished status of DOM version 4 is why both
+<code>rdf:HTML</code> and <code>rdf:XMLLiteral</code> are
+non-normative in RDF 1.1 Concepts. RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract
+Syntax clarifies functionality deemed to be
+useful for those including fragments of XML and HTML content in RDF
+serialization formats.</p>
- <table class="simple">
- <caption>Literals in RDF 1.0 and 1.1.</caption>
- <tr>
- <th></th>
- <th>RDF 1.0</th>
- <th>RDF 1.1</th>
- </tr>
- <tr>
- <td>
- Language tags
- </td>
- <td>
- Literals with a language tag did not have a datatype URI.
- </td>
- <td>
- Literals with language tags now have the datatype IRI <code>rdf:langString</code>.
- </td>
- </tr>
- <tr>
- <td rowspan="2">
- Simple literals
- </td>
- <td>
- Simple literals could appear directly, e.g. "a literal".
- </td>
- <td>
- All literals have datatypes; serializations or other implementations
- might choose to support syntax for simple literals, but only as synonyms
- for <code>xsd:string</code> literals.
- </td>
- </tr>
- <tr>
- <td>
- Control codes in the #x0-#x1F range were permitted.
- </td>
- <td>
- The <code>xsd:string</code> datatype does not permit the #x0 character, and implementations
- might not permit control codes in the #x1-#x1F range. A literal with type
- <code>xsd:string</code> containing the #x0 character is ill-typed.
- </td>
- </tr>
- <tr>
- <td>
- Language tags
- </td>
- <td>
- Permitted language tags that adhered to the generic tag/subtag syntax
- of language tags, but were not well-formed according to [[!BCP47]].
- </td>
- <td>
- Language tags must be well-formed according to [[!BCP47]].
- </td>
- </tr>
- </table>
-
- <p>Planned updates to DOM version 4 [[!DOM4]] are not complete as of this writing. The Working
- Group decided to follow the changes to the DOM in order to support the new datatype <code>rdf:HTML</code>.
- The unfinished status of DOM version 4 is why both <code>rdf:HTML</code> and <code>rdf:XMLLiteral</code> are non-normative
- in RDF 1.1 Concepts. RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax clarifies functionality deemed to be
- useful for those including fragments of XML and HTML content in RDF serialization formats.</p>
-
- </section>
-
- <section id="datasets">
+</section>
+
+<section id="datasets">
- <h3>Datasets</h3>
-
- <p>RDF 1.1 introduces the concept of RDF Datasets. An RDF Dataset is a collection of RDF
- Graphs. The semantics of RDF Datasets
- are minimally specified as of RDF
- 1.1. The Working Group published a
- draft Note discussing issues related
- to semantics of datasets [[RDF11-DATASETS]].</p>
-
- <p>RDF Graphs may be named using an IRI or a blank node. RDF Graphs that are so named are
- called named graphs.</p>
-
- <p>RDF 1.1 includes three new serialization formats capable of representing multiple graphs.</p>
-
- </section>
-
- <section id="datatypes">
+<h3>Datasets</h3>
- <h3>Datatypes</h3>
-
- <p>A table of RDF-compatible XSD datatypes has been added to RDF 1.1 Concepts and
- Abstract Syntax. Any XSD datatypes not represented in this table are incompatible
- with RDF. The following XSD 1.1 datatypes were added to the list of
- RDF-compatible datatypes:</p>
+<p>RDF 1.1 introduces the concept of RDF Datasets. An RDF Dataset is a collection of RDF
+Graphs. The semantics of RDF Datasets
+are minimally specified as of RDF
+1.1. The Working Group published a
+draft Note discussing issues related
+to semantics of datasets [[RDF11-DATASETS]].</p>
+
+<p>RDF Graphs may be named using an IRI or a blank node. RDF Graphs that are so named are
+called named graphs.</p>
+
+<p>RDF 1.1 includes three new serialization formats capable of
+representing multiple graphs.</p>
- <ul>
- <li><code>xsd:duration</code></li>
- <li><code>xsd:dayTimeDuration</code></li>
- <li><code>xsd:yearMonthDuration</code></li>
- <li><code>xsd:dateTimeStamp</code></li>
- </ul>
-
- <p>Support for <code>rdf:XMLLiteral</code> support is now optional. Technically, support for
- any individual datatype is optional and therefore may not be present in a given
- implementation. RDF-conformant specifications may require specific datatype maps.</p>
-
- </section>
-
+</section>
+
+<section id="datatypes">
+
+<h3>Datatypes</h3>
+
+<p>A table of RDF-compatible XSD datatypes has been added to RDF 1.1 Concepts and
+Abstract Syntax. Any XSD datatypes not represented in this table are incompatible
+with RDF. The following XSD 1.1 datatypes were added to the list of
+RDF-compatible datatypes:</p>
+
+<ul>
+ <li><code>xsd:duration</code></li>
+ <li><code>xsd:dayTimeDuration</code></li>
+ <li><code>xsd:yearMonthDuration</code></li>
+ <li><code>xsd:dateTimeStamp</code></li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>Support for <code>rdf:XMLLiteral</code> support is now
+optional. Technically, support for
+any individual datatype is optional and therefore may not be present in a given
+implementation. RDF-conformant specifications may require specific
+datatype maps.</p>
+
+</section>
+
</section>
<section id="section-serializations">
<h2>New Serialization Formats</h2>
-
+
<p>RDF 1.1 introduces a number of new serialization formats. RDF 1.1 Concepts and
Abstract Syntax makes it clear that RDF/XML is no longer the only recommended serialization
format; RDF itself should be considered to be the data model (the
@@ -355,7 +328,7 @@
<img class="graph" src="serialization-formats.png">
<figcaption>RDF 1.0 and 1.1 serialization formats</figcaption>
</figure>
-
+
</section>
<section id="section-semantics">
@@ -368,7 +341,7 @@
<p>Datatype entailment formally refers to a set of 'recognized' datatypes,
replacing datatype maps in RDF 1.0 Semantics, but this does not have any
effect on implementation.</p>
-
+
<p>Datatype entailment formally refers to a set of 'recognized' datatype IRIs.
The RDF 1.0 Semantics used the concept of a datatype map: in the new semantic
description, this is the mapping from recognized IRIs to the datatypes they