--- a/rdf-concepts/index.html Wed Jul 20 13:56:53 2011 +0100
+++ b/rdf-concepts/index.html Thu Jul 21 10:23:35 2011 +0100
@@ -155,6 +155,13 @@
key concepts, datatyping, character normalization
and handling of IRIs.</p>
+ <p class="issue">This document was written when RDF/XML was the
+ only normative syntax. Now it is just one of many syntaxes and
+ it should be de-emphasized accordingly. There is no reason why
+ it should be a normative reference in this document.</p>
+
+ <p class="issue">The rest of this section requires update to reflect the RDF 1.1 work.</p>
+
<p>Normative documentation of RDF falls into the following
areas:</p>
@@ -166,11 +173,6 @@
<li>this document (sections 4, 5, 6 and 7).</li>
</ul>
- <p class="issue">This document was written when RDF/XML was the
- only normative syntax. Now it is just one of many syntaxes and
- it should be de-emphasized accordingly. There is no reason why
- it should be a normative reference in this document.</p>
-
<p>The framework is designed so that vocabularies can be layered.
The RDF and RDF vocabulary definition (RDF schema)
languages
@@ -189,7 +191,10 @@
<section id="section-Concepts" class="informative">
<h2>RDF Concepts</h2>
- <p class="issue">This section is quite redundant with later normative sections and the RDF Primer.</p>
+ <p class="issue">This section is quite redundant with later
+ normative sections and the RDF Primer. Its removal has been
+ proposed. This is
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/68">ISSUE-68</a>.</p>
<p>RDF uses the following key concepts:</p>
@@ -416,13 +421,15 @@
If language annotation is required,
it must be explicitly included as markup, usually by means of an
<code>xml:lang</code> attribute.
-[[XHTML10]] may be included within RDF
+XHTML [[XHTML10]] may be included within RDF
in this way. Sometimes, in this latter case,
an additional <code>span</code> or <code>div</code>
element is needed to carry an
<code>xml:lang</code> or <code>lang</code> attribute.
</p>
+<p class="issue">Update the XHTML 1.0 reference to something more recent?</p>
+
<p>
The string in both plain and typed literals is recommended to
be in Unicode Normal Form C [[!NFC]]. This is motivated
@@ -497,7 +504,8 @@
<p class="issue">This section perhaps should discuss
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp">the XSD datatype map</a>
- and <code><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/">rdf:PlainLiteral</a></code>.</p>
+ and <code><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/">rdf:PlainLiteral</a></code>.
+ This is <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/70">ISSUE-70</a>.</p>
<p>
The datatype abstraction used in RDF is compatible with
@@ -653,6 +661,7 @@
</dl>
+ <p class="issue">RFC 2279 is obsoleted by RFC 3629.</p>
<p class="note">Not all values of this datatype are compliant
with XML 1.1 [[XML11]]. If compliance
@@ -702,9 +711,6 @@
hence be optimized.
</p>
- <p class="issue">The SPARQL WG proposed to add definitions for
- “RDF Term” and “Simple Literal”.</p>
-
<section id="section-triples">
<h3>RDF Triples</h3>
@@ -725,6 +731,10 @@
predicate, object.</p>
<p>The predicate is also known as the <dfn>property</dfn> of the triple.</p>
+
+ <p><a title="IRI">IRIs</a>, <a title="blank node">blank nodes</a> and
+ <a title="literal">literals</a> are collectively known as
+ <dfn title="RDF term">RDF terms</dfn>.</p>
</section>
@@ -1074,25 +1084,34 @@
fragment identifiers when one language is embedded in another. This is
<a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/37">ISSUE-37</a>.</p>
- <p class="issue">This section requires updates to address the
- change from <a title="RDF URI Reference">URI References</a> to <a title="IRI">IRIs</a>.</p>
+ <p class="issue">This section treats the RDF/XML media type as
+ canonical for establishing the referent of IRIs that include
+ fragment identifier. Today we have many different media types
+ that can carry RDF graphs, and HTTP content negotiation is more
+ common. Also, the problem addressed in the section
+ (context-dependence of fragment identifiers) has to some extent
+ gone away when RFC 2396 was replaced by RFC 3986. The latter
+ states that the same fragment should be used for the same thing
+ in resources that have multiple representations
+ (Section 3.5 [[URI]]). This is
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/69">ISSUE-69</a>.</p>
- <p>RDF uses an <a title="RDF URI Reference">RDF URI
- Reference</a>, which may include a fragment identifier, as a
- context free identifier for a resource. RFC 2396 states that the meaning of a fragment
+ <p>RDF uses <a title="IRI">IRIs</a>,
+ which may include fragment identifiers, as
+ context free identifiers for resources. RFC 2396 states
+ that the meaning of a fragment
identifier depends on the MIME content-type of a document, i.e.
is context dependent.</p>
<p>These apparently conflicting views are reconciled by
- considering that a URI reference in an RDF graph is treated
+ considering that an <a>IRI</a> in an RDF graph is treated
with respect to the MIME type <code>application/rdf+xml</code>
- [[!RDF-MIME-TYPE]]. Given an RDF URI
- reference consisting of an absolute URI and a fragment
- identifier, the fragment identifer identifies the same thing
+ [[RDF-MIME-TYPE]]. Given an IRI that includes a fragment identifier,
+ the fragment identifer identifies the same thing
that it does in an <code>application/rdf+xml</code> representation of the
- resource identified by the absolute URI component. Thus:</p>
+ resource identified by the IRI excluding the fragment identifier. Thus:</p>
<ul>
- <li>we assume that the URI part (i.e. excluding fragment
- identifier) identifies a resource, which is presumed to have
+ <li>we assume that the IRI excluding fragment
+ identifier identifies a resource, which is presumed to have
an RDF representation. So when <code>eg:someurl#frag</code> is used in an RDF
document, <code>eg:someurl</code> is taken to
designate some RDF document (even when no such document can
@@ -1113,16 +1132,16 @@
car or a mythical Unicorn.</li>
<li>in this way, an <code>application/rdf+xml</code> document acts as an
intermediary between some Web retrievable documents (itself,
- at least, also any other Web retrievable URIs that it may
- use, possibly including schema URIs and references to other
+ at least, also any other Web retrievable IRIs that it may
+ use, possibly including schema IRIs and references to other
RDF documents), and some set of possibly abstract or non-Web
entities that the RDF may describe.</li>
</ul>
- <p>This provides a handling of URI references and their
+ <p>This provides a handling of IRIs and their
denotation that is consistent with the RDF model theory and
usage, and also with conventional Web behavior. Note that
nothing here requires that an RDF application be able to
- retrieve any representation of resources identified by the URIs
+ retrieve any representation of resources identified by the IRIs
in an RDF graph.</p>
</section>
@@ -1331,7 +1350,7 @@
<ul>
<li>2011-07-20: Removed informative sections “Motivations and Goals” (see <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Overview">RDF 2004 version</a>) and “RDF Expression of Simple Facts” (see <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-SimpleFacts">RDF 2004 version</a>)</li>
- <li>2011-06-01: Replaced the URI References section with <a href="#section-IRIs">new section on IRIs</a>, and changed “RDF URI Reference” to “IRI” throughout the document, except in <a href="#section-fragID">section 8</a>.</li>
+ <li>2011-06-01: Replaced the URI References section with <a href="#section-IRIs">new section on IRIs</a>, and changed “RDF URI Reference” to “IRI” throughout the document.</li>
<li>2011-06-01: Changed language tag definition to require well-formedness according to BCP47; added a note that this invalidates some RDF</li>
<li>2011-05-25: Added boxes for known WG issues throught the document</li>
<li>2011-05-25: Deleted “Structure of this Document” section, it added no value beyond the TOC</li>
@@ -1344,15 +1363,7 @@
</section>
-<section id="references">
- <div class="issue">
- <ul>
- <li>RFC 2279 is obsoleted by RFC 3629</li>
- <li>Change OWL reference to OWL2?</li>
- <li>Change XHTML10 reference to XHTML5?</li>
- </ul>
- </div>
-</section>
+<section id="references"></section>
</body>
</html>