RDF Concepts section ordering

[afs]

This issue is to check we are in agreement that the document order is satisfactory ("perfect for every case" is not the goal!).
"No action" is a possible outcome.

After issues and pull requests

• Section 3.8 Initial Text Direction should be a subsection of 3.4 Literals #189
• Move skolemization section to an appendix #224
• Move 'Initial Text Direction' section to being a subsection of "3.4 Literals" #225

related to the order of sections in RDF Concepts, the sections are:

RDF Concepts section ordering (2025-08-06)

Abstract

Status of This Document
  Set of Documents

1.Introduction
  1.1 Graph-based Data Model
  1.2 Resources and Statements
  1.3 The Referent of an IRI
  1.4 RDF Vocabularies and Namespace IRIs
  1.5 Triple Terms and Reification
  1.6 RDF and Change over Time
  1.7 Working with Multiple RDF Graphs
  1.8 Equivalence, Entailment and Inconsistency
  1.9 RDF Documents and Syntaxes
  1.10 RDF Version Announcement

2.Conformance
  2.1 Version Labels
    2.1.1 Server Considerations
    2.1.2 Client Considerations
  2.2 Strings in RDF

3.RDF Graphs
  3.1 Triples
  3.2 RDF Terms
  3.3 IRIs
  3.4 Literals
    3.4.1 Representation of Literals
    3.4.2 Literal Value
    3.4.3 Initial Text Direction
  3.5 Blank Nodes
  3.6 Triple Terms
  3.7 Graph Comparison

4. RDF Datasets
  4.1 RDF Dataset Comparison
  4.2 Content Negotiation of RDF Datasets
  4.3 Dataset as a Set of Quads

5. Datatypes
  5.1 The XML Schema Built-in Datatypes
  5.2 Datatype IRIs

6. Fragment Identifiers

7. Generalizations of RDF Triples, Graphs, and Datasets
  7.1 Symmetric RDF
  7.2 Generalized RDF

A. Additional Datatypes
  A.1 The rdf:HTML Datatype
  A.2 The rdf:XMLLiteral Datatype
  A.3 The rdf:JSON Datatype

B. Replacing Blank Nodes with IRIs

C. Privacy Considerations

D. Security Considerations

E. Internationalization Considerations

F. IRI Grammar

G.Acknowledgments
  G.1 Acknowledgments for RDF 1.0
  G.2 Acknowledgments for RDF 1.1
  G.3 Acknowledgments for RDF 1.2

H.Changes between RDF 1.1 and RDF 1.2

I.Index
  I.1 Terms defined by this specification
  I.2 Terms defined by reference

J.Issue summary

K.References
  K.1 Normative references
  K.2 Informative references

[w3cbot]

This was discussed during the #rdf-star meeting on 07 August 2025.

[TallTed]

It seems odd to me to have a subsection about 3.4.3 Initial Text Direction following a subsection about 3.4.2 Literal Value, without having an intervening subsection about langtagged literals that lack explicit directionality, even though these are discussed in both the superior 3.4 Literals and the preceding 3.4.2 Literal Value.

This section may benefit from significant additional textual massage to address the redundancy between 3.4 Literals and its subsections, and among those subsections ... and maybe a new issue regarding same.

[gkellogg]

I think a small section before the Initial Text Direction section on language tags would make sense. Both of these sections should probably be linked from 3.4.

[afs]

The first part of literal value says:

If the literal is a language-tagged string, then the literal value is a pair consisting of its lexical form and its language tag, in that order.

so it seems more that "value" is being used in a very wide sense in the "Literal Value" title.

The Initial Text Direction section is, arguably, there because it is a new concept in RDF 1.2.

[afs]

On the section ordering --

The top-level section 6. Fragment Identifiers seems like it could go in the 3.3 IRIs section.

Combine that with the long note becoming a section with terminology (#223) might make sense.

Or it could be an appendix because the purpose is "This section discusses the handling of fragment identifiers in representations that encode RDF graphs." then talks about HTML+RDFa.

I don't think that section ordering should block starting wide review.

[TallTed]

I don't think that section ordering should block starting wide review.

I agree. It might be worthwhile to note that section order is somewhat in flux, and reviewers are welcome to comment on this topic.

[afs]

From the telecon 2025-08-28.

The WG does not see this as blocking on going to CR. No change is a possibility.
Whether this issue happens will depend on time/resources.

Remove ms:CR.

[w3cbot]

This was discussed during the #rdf-star meeting on 28 August 2025.

View the transcript

Issue 228 RDF Concepts section ordering (by afs) [ms:CR]

<gb> CLOSED Action 4 decide on the short names of the specifications (on pchampin) due 22 Dec 2022

AndyS: I propose to remove the ms:CR label. I don't think that a reordering of the section would invalidate the Horizontal Review.

<TallTed> reordering is editorial. and doesn't invalidate horizontal review.

ora: agreed

<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask about private email

---