#1159: WG New Spec: RDF 1.2 Concepts and Abstract Data Model

Visit on Github.

Opened Oct 21, 2025

Specification

https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/

Explainer

https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-primer/

Links

  • The WG's request for this TAG review: https:// <!-- Usually a deep link into minutes or an email thread. -->
  • Previous early design review, if any: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/####
  • An introduction to the feature, aimed at unfamiliar audiences: Compared to RDF 1.1, the three main new features in RDF 1.2 are
    • triple-terms, that allow to make statements about other RDF statements (asserted or not) in a better way than the old-style reification
    • the ability to attach a base direction on language tagged strings, which complies with i18n good practices
    • a way to declare which version of RDF is used in RDF concrete syntaxes
  • A description of the problems that end-users were facing before this proposal:
  • Alternatives considered:
  • Examples of how to use the proposal to solve the end-users' problems: see explainer
  • What do the end-users experience with this proposal: since RDF's "end-users" are developers and information architect, the notion of "user experience" does not quite apply
  • User research you did to validate the problem and/or design, if any: none by the WG (but triple-terms have long been studied by the academic community as RDF* / RDF-star)
  • Web Platform Tests: N/A

The specification

Where and by whom is the work is being done?

  • GitHub repo: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/
  • Primary contacts:
    • Olaf Hartig (@hartig), Invited Expert, Editor
    • Pierre-Antoine Champin (@pchampin), W3C / Inria, Editor
    • Andy Seaborne (@afs), Apache Software Foundation, Editor
    • Adrian Gschwend (@ktk), Zazuko, Chair
    • Ora Lassila (@rdfguy), Amazon, Chair
  • Organization/project driving the specification: W3C
  • This work is being funded by: none
  • Primary standards group developing this feature: RDF & SPARQL WG
  • Incubation and standards groups that have discussed the design:

Feedback so far

You should also know that...

No response

<!-- Content below this is maintained by @w3c-tag-bot -->

Track conversations at https://tag-github-bot.w3.org/gh/w3ctag/design-reviews/1159

Discussions

Discussed Oct 27, 2025 (See Github)

Sarven isn't here.

Discussed Nov 3, 2025 (See Github)

FedCM update (1136):

Matthew: Discussed in Plenary last night, decided to have it in the agenda for today.

Lola: I remember I had to look at the comment.

Ehsan: I submitted my review last night, Jeffrey got some questions. So not ready yet.

Lola: Let me have a look.

Lola: They seem to they talk past you. They are not realising your concern about the three URLs. I do wonder about the top-level FedCM directly, if this is the case, what is the point of all of this?

Ehsan: My issue is the permission claim from the RP and then matching from the IdP. I believe there is a chance of injection or being malicious so all three items should be shown. This is authentication ceremony so better be crticial on all detail, show everything to the user and let the user decide.

Lola: It is healthy to be cautios as it is authentication. Let me look at your draft response.

Lola: I think Jeffrey's question is particularely potenant(??) on the attack is possible. Are you saying that the attack is possible?

Ehsan: ???

Lola: I think we need to frame that serious example, I think the attack likelihood is low so maybe opt in for accept with concern.

Ehsan: Maybe Serena can help?

Lola: Maybe phrase the question. "What instances show two URL's are shown? and why is that the case and why all three should be shown? anyone has problem?

Matthew: no othing from me. It would be a good idea to talk at TPAC with the people there. Will try to do that.

Discussed Nov 24, 2025 (See Github)

Sarven: On my todo. Will come back to this.