update RDF dataset discussion with explicit comparison of { RDF | SPARQL } { 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.0 }

[TallTed]

Add explicit comparison of SPARQL 1.2 and RDF 1.2, vs SPARQL 1.1, RDF 1.1, and RDF 1.0. Might also want specific difference with SPARQL 1.0.

This specificity may not be needed for users who have never before encountered RDF or SPARQL, but I think it helpful for users who have worked with any previous version(s) — like me.

---

Preview | Diff

[gkellogg]

Note that we do discuss changes to RDF in the Abstract:

RDF 1.2 introduces triple terms as another kind of RDF term which can be used as the object of another triple. RDF 1.2 also introduces directional language-tagged strings, which contain a base direction element that allows the initial text direction to be specified for presentation by a user agent.

RDF 1.2 Concepts introduces key concepts and terminology for RDF 1.2, discusses datatyping, and the handling of fragment identifiers in IRIs within RDF graphs.

RDF 1.0 did not have named graphs, and therefore a discussion of the use of IRIs for graph names is not appropriate. (SPARQL 1.0 had it's own concept of named graphs).

[TallTed]

Note that we do discuss changes to RDF in the Abstract:

I don't know about you, but when I am looking things up in a spec, and even when I am trying to read the entire document, I often overlook things in the Abstract (because I don't understand enough to absorb them properly) — and may even skip it entirely, because I expect it to echo things said later but at a higher level of, sorry, abstraction. For these reasons, I suggest that anything we mean for the reader to actively digest should be placed elsewhere in the document, even if it is also said (preferably not word-for-word) in the Abstract.

RDF 1.0 did not have named graphs, and therefore a discussion of the use of IRIs for graph names is not appropriate. (SPARQL 1.0 had it's own concept of named graphs).

My bad, probably. I should have re-re-re-re-re-re-read the RDF 1.0 & 1.1 and SPARQL 1.0 & 1.1 docs more closely. (In fact, I did go back to those docs, and based my own writing on what they said. I should have linked to my source material. I'll see if I can re-find it.)

[pchampin]

Apart from the erroneous reference to named graphs in RDF 1.0, LGTM.

@pchampin requested that the erroneous inclusion of RDF 1.0 regarding named graphs be removed, which it has been.