Review sec1.5 wv

[william-vw]

In response to Enrico's message, I had a look at Section 1.5. I personally found it a bit abstract and difficult to read. This is an attempt to make the section more concrete and reduce its complexity.

I added justifications for the edits as in-line HTML comments.

---

Preview | Diff

[afs]

Please remove .DS_Store.

[william-vw]

Please remove .DS_Store.

Ugh, sorry. Removed now.

[afs]

The text of section 1.5 has been part of discussions on github and in the telecons. Changing the wording can not be seen as simply editorial because of the reliance on the current text.

[william-vw]

I'm confused - this proposal was in response to the following on the mailinglist:

people having concrete suggestion on how to better write section 1.5

*given the current definitions of RDF 1.2 semantics* please step up and write down such badly needed proposals. It also does not change any wording but rather restructures and concretizes.

…

On Sat, Sep 13, 2025, 7:18 a.m. Andy Seaborne ***@***.***> wrote: *afs* left a comment (w3c/rdf-concepts#240) <#240 (comment)> The text of section 1.5 has been part of discussions on github and in the telecons. Changing the wording can not be seen as simply editorial because of the reliance on the current text. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#240 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC2PLMFCR2NFSZIKSVQEJH33SP4O5AVCNFSM6AAAAACGLFK3W2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTEOBYGEYTGOJQGU> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[afs]

Rendered display of the PR : section 1.5: https://raw.githack.com/william-vw/rdf-concepts/review_sec1.5_wv/spec/index.html#section-triple-terms-reification

[afs]

It also does not change any wording but rather restructures and concretizes.

I am saying that this PR is on a sensitive area and should not be treated as "editorial". I didn't say it made changes.

[niklasl]

I appreciate this attempt to improve clarity and approachability (qualities sometimes hard to balance). We did some in #214 and #219 (perhaps that might clarify some reasoning about the current state).

I agree with @afs's comment, and we need to weigh the words carefully. Since this change rearranges and adds example text (which looks promising), it is wise to avoid changing too much wording (there seems to be some of that; perhaps for the better, some do worry me a bit).

Since the inline questions in comments make the changes harder to see (for me), and regardless must not be part of the results, I'd appreciate if you remove those @william-vw. I do appreciate their content though, and you might find it useful to add comments in the diff view to motivate; or if you are unsure of changes, you can propose them there as well (with comments).

[niklasl]

Some exemplifying additions, rearrangements and corrections (see "encode" vs. "denote") that this PR seeks may prove very valuable. But the inline HTML comments need to be removed; and I think at least the way it uses "metadata about the triple term" needs to be addressed.

[william-vw]

Since the inline questions in comments make the changes harder to see (for me), and regardless must not be part of the results, I'd appreciate if you remove those @william-vw.

I removed the inline comments. They can still be found in the initial commit. (Sorry, they were never meant to be permanent, next time I will use the diff comment function.)

I re-added the comments which did not merely explain the edits as diff comments.

[william-vw]

Note that my diff comments and replies are showing up as "pending" - unsure whether you can see them.

[pchampin]

Note that my diff comments and replies are showing up as "pending" - unsure whether you can see them.

I can't. I suspect that you created them as "review comment", and you did not submit the review.

[pchampin]

I really like the reordering of arguments in this section. It makes a much smoother narrative, and better conveys the idea that we want to convey, IMO.

That being said, I share the concerns raised by @afs and @niklasl. I made a number of suggestion that, I believe, respect the spirit of this PR, while addressing those concerns.

[w3cbot]

This was discussed during the #rdf-star meeting on 18 September 2025.

View the transcript

Pull Request 240 Review sec1.5 wv (by william-vw)

pchampin: it is related to the discussion of reifies
… The PR is reordering the arguments in Sec.1.5
… personally, I am happy with the latest changes in that PR
… Also, it may deprecate my own PR

<tl> I haven't had a look at this (wasn't aware of it)

<gb> Issue 169 definition of reifiers is non-normative and seems vague (by rat10) [needs discussion] [propose closing] [ms:CR]

niklasl: I need to look closely at this PR, but I have the same general impression. Yet, I still need to confirm.

<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to note that we still have w3c/rdf-star-wg#169

niklasl: It is editorial, which means it is not necessarily CR related.

---

[pchampin]

with @TallTed's suggestions

[afs]

Someone else will have to merge

No problem - it's an editors job. It looks like everything is resolved and can be merged soon.
It's not unchangeable once merged.