--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/rdf-new/index.html Tue Nov 26 19:03:43 2013 -0500
@@ -0,0 +1,368 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html>
+<html lang="en">
+ <head>
+ <meta charset="utf-8">
+ <title>What’s New in RDF 1.1</title>
+ <script src="../local-biblio.js" class="remove"></script>
+ <script src="https://www.w3.org/Tools/respec/respec-w3c-common" class="remove"></script>
+ <script class='remove'>
+ var respecConfig = {
+ // extend the bibliography entries
+ localBiblio: localBibliography,
+
+ // specification status (e.g. WD, LC, WG-NOTE, etc.). If in doubt use ED.
+ specStatus: "ED",
+
+ // the specification's short name, as in http://www.w3.org/TR/short-name/
+ shortName: "rdf11-new",
+
+ // if your specification has a subtitle that goes below the main
+ // formal title, define it here
+ // subtitle : "an excellent document",
+
+ // if you wish the publication date to be other than today, set this
+ // publishDate: "<li>2013-11-05",
+
+
+ // if the specification's copyright date is a range of years, specify
+ // the start date here:
+ // copyrightStart: "2004",
+
+ // if there is a previously published draft, uncomment this and set its YYYY-MM-DD date
+ // and its maturity status
+ // previousPublishDate: "2004-02-10",
+ // previousMaturity: "REC",
+
+ // if there a publicly available Editor's Draft, this is the link
+ edDraftURI: "https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-new/index.html",
+
+ // if this is a LCWD, uncomment and set the end of its review period
+ // lcEnd: "<li>2013-09-06",
+
+ // 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",
+
+ // editors, add as many as you like
+ // only "name" is required
+ editors: [
+ { name: "David Wood", url: "http://about.me/david_wood",
+ company: "3 Round Stones Inc.", companyURL:
+ "http://3roundstones.com/"
+ },
+ ],
+
+ // authors, add as many as you like.
+ // This is optional, uncomment if you have authors as well as editors.
+ // only "name" is required. Same format as editors.
+
+ //authors: [
+ // { name: "Your Name", url: "http://example.org/",
+ // company: "Your Company", companyURL: "http://example.com/" },
+ //],
+
+ // name of the WG
+ wg: "RDF Working Group",
+
+ // URI of the public WG page
+ wgURI: "http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/",
+
+ // name (with the @w3c.org) of the public mailing to which comments are due
+ wgPublicList: "public-rdf-comments",
+
+ // URI of the patent status for this WG, for Rec-track documents
+ // !!!! IMPORTANT !!!!
+ // This is important for Rec-track documents, do not copy a patent URI from a random
+ // document unless you know what you're doing. If in doubt ask your friendly neighborhood
+ // Team Contact.
+ wgPatentURI: "http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/46168/status",
+
+ // if this parameter is set to true, ReSpec.js will embed various RDFa attributes
+ // 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; }
+ 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
+ representing information about resources in the World Wide
+ Web. This document is intended to provide the reader with a summary
+ of changes to RDF introduced in RDF version 1.1.
+ </p>
+</section>
+
+<section id="sotd">
+
+</section>
+
+</div>
+
+<section id="section-introduction">
+
+ <h2>Introduction</h2>
+
+ <p>This document is informative in nature. Its
+ purpose is to provide a summary of differences between RDF versions 1.0
+ and 1.1 and to introduce new additions in a very brief manner.
+ </p>
+
+ <p>Readers new to RDF should start with the RDF 1.1 Primer
+ [[RDF11-PRIMER]] and then move on to the specifications in which they are
+ most interested. This document is meant to serve as a guide for those
+ already familiar with RDF 1.0 who wish to understand changes in version
+ 1.1.</p>
+
+ <p>This document is not normative and does not give a complete
+ account of RDF 1.1. Normative specifications of RDF can be found in the
+ following documents: </p>
+ <ul>
+ <li>A document describing the basic concepts underlying RDF, as
+ well as abstract syntax ("RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax")
+ [[!RDF11-CONCEPTS]]</li>
+ <li>A document describing the formal model-theoretic semantics
+ of RDF ("RDF Semantics") [[!RDF11-MT]]</li>
+ <li>Specifications of concrete syntaxes for RDF, such as Turtle
+ [[!TURTLE]], TriG [[!TRIG]], N-Triples [[!N-TRIPLES]],
+ N-Quads [[!N-QUADS]] and JSON-LD [[!JSON-LD]]</li>
+ <li>The RDF Vocabulary Description Language RDF Schema
+ [[!RDF-SCHEMA]]</li>
+ </ul>
+
+</section>
+
+<section id="section-summary">
+ <h2>Summary of Changes</h2>
+
+ <p class="issue">TODO: Introduce a table of the most important changes with links.</p>
+
+</section>
+
+<section id="section-concepts">
+
+ <p>This section discusses changes between the 2004 Recommendation of RDF Concepts and Abstract
+ Syntax [[RDF-CONCEPTS]] and the RDF 1.1 version [[RDF11-CONCEPTS]].</p>
+
+ <p class="issue">Is Appendix A of Concepts (http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/CR-rdf11-concepts-20131105/#changes)
+ overcome by this document? Should it be removed? It does not appear to be up to date.</p>
+
+ <p>The purpose of RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax is to define and describe the RDF
+ data model. The specification is not to be implemented directly. There are no test
+ cases specific to RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax.</p>
+
+ <p>Since 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 should be considered to be the data model (the abstract syntax), not any
+ particular serialization.</p>
+
+ <p>Previous versions of RDF used the term "RDF URI Reference" instead of
+ "IRI" and allowed additional characters: "<", ">",
+ "{", "}", "|", "\", "^",
+ "`", ‘"’ (double quote), and " " (space). In IRIs,
+ these characters must be percent-encoded as described in section 2.1 of [RFC3986].
+ RDF 1.1 uses IRIs throughout.</p>
+
+ <p>In earlier versions of RDF, literals with a language tag did not have a datatype IRI.
+ Literals with language tags now have the datatype IRI rdf:langString.</p>
+
+ <p>In earlier versions, simple literals could appear directly in the abstract syntax.
+ Literals in RDF 1.1 all have datatypes; implementations might choose to support simple
+ literals, but only as synonyms for xsd:string literals.</p>
+
+ <p>Earlier versions of RDF permitted language tags that adhered to the generic
+ tag/subtag syntax of language tags, but were not well-formed according to [BCP47].
+ Such language tags do not conform to RDF 1.1.</p>
+
+ <p>The xsd:string datatype does not permit the #x0 character, and implementations might
+ not permit control codes in the #x1-#x1F range. Earlier versions of RDF allowed these
+ characters in simple literals, although they could never be serialized in a W3C-recommended
+ concrete syntax. Currently a literal with type xsd:string containing the #x0 character is
+ an ill-typed literal.</p>
+
+ <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 rdf:HTML.
+ The unfinished status of DOM version 4 puts both rdf:HTML and rdf:XMLLiteral at risk in RDF
+ 1.1 Concepts, but clarifies functionality deemed to be useful for those including fragments
+ of XML and HTML content in RDF serialization formats.</p>
+
+ <p>A table of RDF-compatible XSD datatypes has been added. 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>xsd:duration</li>
+ <li>xsd:dayTimeDuration</li>
+ <li>xsd:yearMonthDuration</li>
+ <li>xsd:dateTimeStamp</li>
+ </ul>
+
+ <p>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>
+
+ <p class="issue">Add comments on the following changes to Concepts. See
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/CR-rdf11-concepts-20131105/#change-log">
+ http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/CR-rdf11-concepts-20131105/#change-log</a></p>
+
+ <ul>
+ <li>Introduced the concepts of Generalized RDF Triples, Graphs, and Datasets.</li>
+ <li>Note that graphs may be named and names may be blank nodes, but note the consequences.</li>
+ <li>Revised the definition of blank nodes; check for details.</li>
+ <li>Define/introduce the term "RDF source"?</li>
+ <li>Note changes to Fragment Identifiers.</li>
+ <li>Skolemization advice in section on Replacing Blank Nodes with IRIs.</li>
+ </ul>
+
+</section>
+
+<section id="section-semantics">
+
+ <h2>Changes in RDF 1.1 Semantics</h2>
+
+ <p>Most of the changes between RDF and RDF 1.1 do not have any effect on
+ implementations of entailment, but there are a few minor changes.</p>
+
+ <p>The sequence in which the versions of entailment are defined has changed.
+ Datatype entailment is now defined on top of simple entailment, and then
+ RDF and RDFS entailment are defined. Datatype entailment formally refers
+ to a set of 'recognized' datatypes, replacing the old datatype maps, but
+ this does not have any effect on implementation.</p>
+
+ <p>RDF entailment has two required datatypes xsd:string and rdf:langString
+ which must be recognized, but this doesn't appreciably add to RDF
+ entailment as these two datatypes replace plain literals.</p>
+
+ <p>Literals formerly described as plain literals are now divided into
+ xsd:string literals, for plain literals without language tags, and
+ rdf:langString literals, for plain literals with language tags. Thus
+ all literals have a type and there is no need for an implementation
+ to have separate data structures for plain literals and datatyped
+ literals, although rdf:langString is a special datatype as it has a
+ language tag in addition to a lexical form and thus it requires special
+ treatment. Implementations that have a special internal data structure
+ for plain literals might not need to appreciably change. The zero Unicode
+ character is not a valid element in xsd:string values, but was allowed in
+ plain literals, so there is a minor change here.</p>
+
+ <p>One change that does affect entailment is that graphs containing invalid
+ literals (e.g., "a"^^xsd:integer) are immediately inconsistent for
+ recognized datatypes, even in sub-RDFS entailment regimes.</p>
+
+ <p>There is a list of XML Schema datatypes that are deemed suitable for use
+ within RDF. They are all optional except for xsd:string.</p>
+
+ <p>The rdf:XMLLiteral datatype is now optional. rdf:HTML is a new optional
+ datatype; implementation experience and illustrative tests are requested.
+ (Note also that rdf:HTML has at-risk aspects concerning DOM4 normalization.)
+ rdf:PlainLiteral is a newish optional datatype; implementation experience
+ and illustrative tests are requested.</p>
+
+ <p>RDF 1.1 includes RDF Datasets. However, the semantics of RDF Datasets in
+ RDF 1.1 is minimal and entailment per se is only defined on RDF graphs so
+ there are no changes here.</p>
+
+</section>
+
+<section id="section-schema">
+
+ <h2>Changes in RDF 1.1 Schema</h2>
+
+ <p>Changes to RDF Schema were minor and reflected the Working Group's charter
+ to update (not rewrite) RDF. Minimal changes were made to align RDF 1.1
+ Schema with the remainder of the RDF 1.1 specifications.</p>
+
+ <p>RDF 1.1 Schema now uses IRIs in place of "URI References" throughout,
+ following RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax.</p>
+
+ <p>Previous versions of RDF Schema included a discussion about distinction
+ between plain and typed literals. This distinction has been resolved in RDF
+ 1.1 and so this discussion has been removed.</p>
+
+ <p class="issue">RDF Vocabulary IRI and Namespace should be added to this document (from Concepts). This hasn't been done yet.</p>
+
+</section>
+
+<section id="section-serializations">
+
+ <h2>New Serialization Formats</h2>
+
+ <p class="issue">What do we want to say about the new serializations? Primarily that
+ they exist and have the recommendation status they have. Also that they have
+ separate degrees of completeness in their ability to serialize the RDF data model.
+ Anything else? Examples and language overviews should be left to the Primer to
+ avoid duplication.</p>
+
+ <section id="subsection-turtle">
+
+ <h2>Turtle</h2>
+
+ <p>TODO: Turtle</p>
+
+ </section>
+
+ <section id="subsection-trig">
+
+ <h2>TriG</h2>
+
+ <p>TODO: TriG</p>
+
+ </section>
+
+ <section id="subsection-n-triples">
+
+ <h2>N-Triples</h2>
+
+ <p>TODO: N-Triples</p>
+
+ </section>
+
+ <section id="subsection-n-quads">
+
+ <h2>N-Quads</h2>
+
+ <p>TODO: N-Quads</p>
+
+ </section>
+
+ <section id="subsection-json-ld">
+
+ <h2>JSON-LD</h2>
+
+ <p>TODO: JSON-LD</p>
+
+ </section>
+
+</section>
+
+<section id="section-Acknowledgments" class-"appendix">
+
+ <h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
+
+ <p class="issue">This section does not yet list all those who
+ contributed to this document. It should certainly include reviewers
+ and perhaps current RDF WG members.</p>
+
+ <p>The editor gratefully acknowledges the members of the RDF Working
+ Group who contributed to this document, including Richard Cyganiak,
+ Gavin Garothers, Pat Hayes, Sandro Hawke, Gregg Kellogg, Markus
+ Lanthaler, Peter Patel-Schneider, Eric Prud-hommeaux, Guus Schreiber
+ and Manu Sporny.
+
+</section>
+
+
+<section id="references"></section>
+
+ </body>
+</html>