#1160: WG New Spec: RDF 1.2 Semantics
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)
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.
OpenedOct 21, 2025
Specification
https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-semantics/
Explainer
https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-primer/
Links
The specification
Where and by whom is the work is being done?
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