What else is still needed for moving to CR?

[ktk]

[afs]

Here is a look at all RDF documents.

First batch of documents:

• RDF Concepts
• RDF Semantics
• RDF N-Triples (because semantics tests need it)

Notes:

• RDF New
• RDF Primer
• RDF Interop

Not first batch?

• RDF Turtle (though many examples use it)
• RDF Schema -> RDF Vocabularies
• RDF XML Syntax

Remaining documents:

• RDF N-Quads
• RDF TriG
• Namespace update (rdf:, rdfs:)

[pfps]

There are issues on Semantics showing what sections need to be updated. Work on these sections has been delayed because there still appears to the possibility that the RDF semantics will need to change and the Semantics editors have been involved with discussions on the meaning of annotations.

[domel]

• RDF Schema -> RDF Vocabularies

I think that there is no decision to change RDF Schema to RDF Vocab.

[w3cbot]

This was discussed during the #rdf-star meeting on 24 July 2025.

View the transcript

What else is still needed for moving to CR? 3

AndyS: will put in a PR wrt n-triples about a behaviour i'm not happy with

AndyS: concepts issues 129 clarification abstract syntax and datamodel, issue#??? , issue # 116 rdf json

gkellogg: #89 in turtle - resolving IRIs needs to be figured out, also in n-triples

<gb> CLOSED Action 89 follow up to the persons concerned [4] (on pfps) due 2023-09-19

<AndyS> w3c/rdf-concepts#129

<gb> Issue 129 Distinguish the RDF Data Model from the Abstract Syntax (by gkellogg) [ms:CR] [spec:substantive]

<AndyS> w3c/rdf-concepts#92

<gb> Issue 92 identity and equality of datatype values (by pfps) [spec:editorial]

<AndyS> w3c/rdf-concepts#116

<gb> Issue 116 rdf:JSON value space incorrect (by pfps) [ms:CR] [spec:bug]

ktk: andy, please tag the issues that you mentioned as "needs discussion"

<AndyS> w3c/rdf-turtle#89

<gb> Issue 89 Different parsing of the same absolute IRI with or without base IRI (by Tpt) [ErratumRaised] [needs discussion]

pchampin: we need some things sorted out before we go to CR, but can we ask for horizontal review from other WGs already? the remaining issues don't seem to have the potential to completely change the course of the specs.
… question to the group: do you think there is teh danger of such issues that could completely change the direction? would it bad practice to ask for horizontal review now?

gkellogg: if we add markers for the issues that we think do need discussion before we get into CR

ktk: do we have such issues?

<AndyS> Souri --all are the TR/rdf12-* for concepts, n-triples, semantics.

pfps: semantics work has been delayed largely because of discussion of what annotation of statements means
… underlying semantics might have to be changed
… until that's clarified it doesn't make sense to finalize semantics

pchampin: so peter think big changes in semantics are still possible, right?
… horiziontal review involves TAG, security, privacy, internationalization

pfps: only TAG would be possibly affected
… also small changes can be very time consuming

pchampin: suggest to give ourselves a deadline to identify blocking issues, and address them in a coming meeting

ktk: call, or issue, to establish that list?

pchampin: CR labels in github issues

ktk: and then discuss those labels in a WG meeting
… maybe send out a mail to the list to ask for those labels

pchampin: and then discuss them in 2 weeks?

andys: what are the risk points wrt semantics?

pfps: two PRs about the connection of statements and annotations (one in concepts, one in semantics)

ktk: will send out an email on this list of issues blocking going to CR

---