#1160: WG New Spec: RDF 1.2 Semantics

Visit on Github

Opened Oct 21, 2025

Specification

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

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-semantics/
  • Primary contacts:
    • Peter Patel-Schneider (@pfps), Invited Expert, Editor
    • Dörthe Arndt (@doerthe), Invited Expert, Editor
    • Enrico Franconi (@franconi), Invited Expert, Editor
    • Adrian Gschwend (@ktk), Zazuko, chair
    • Ora Lassila (@rdfguy), Amazon, chair
    • Pierre-Antoine Champin (@pchampin), W3C / Inria, Editor
  • 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/1160

Discussions

Log in to see TAG-private discussions.

Discussed Oct 27, 2025 (See Github)

Sarven isn't here.

Discussed Nov 24, 2025 (See Github)

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

Discussed Dec 1, 2025 (See Github)

(Sarven isn't here today)

Discussed Dec 8, 2025 (See Github)

Skipped

Discussed Jan 5, 2026 (See Github)

Sarven: Draft review: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews-private-brainstorming/issues/216#issuecomment-3718693351

Comment by @csarven Jan 8, 2026 (See Github)

The TAG thanks the RDF & SPARQL WG for requesting this review.

The TAG recommends the following:

The section "Substantive changes since RDF 1.1" mentions the deprecation of rdf:PlainLiteral. The recommendation that "rdf:PlainLiteral not be used in RDF" could be clearer.For instance, while the recommendation is clear for RDF 1.2 content producers, it is unclear for consumers encountering RDF 1.1 content. If RDF 1.2 is backward compatible with RDF 1.1, would the expectation be that RDF 1.2 parsers still need to implement rdf:PlainLiteral or handle it in other ways? If this is already documented elsewhere, a reference would be helpful. This point potentially touches on error handling, as also discussed in the review RDF 1.2 Concepts and Abstract Data Model https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1159#issuecomment-3671161845 .

This review reflects the TAG's current assessment and is intended to support the Working Group's next steps. We are happy to discuss further if clarification is needed.