Add non-normative section describing issues with RDF/XML 1.1 parsers parsing RDF/XML 1.2

[JervenBolleman]

It would be nice if we include a section on the issue of non-conforming RDF/XML 1.1 parsers mis-interpreting RDF/XML 1.2 features.

Would also be nice to have a non-normative SHACL-RULES that detects this or fixes this.

[afs]

Would also be nice to have a non-normative SHACL-RULES that detects this or fixes this.

Would that be SHACL Shapes (it only needs "core" features) - i.e. a validation task?

[JervenBolleman]

Would also be nice to have a non-normative SHACL-RULES that detects this or fixes this.

Would that be SHACL Shapes (it only needs "core" features) - i.e. a validation task?

A SHACL shape that detects the presence of the misinterpreted triple terms would be a good first step ;)
However, I was thinking of a SHACL rule that turns a misinterpreted triple term back into the correct RDF 1.2 interpretation.

[afs]

However, I was thinking of a SHACL rule that turns a misinterpreted triple term back into the correct RDF 1.2 interpretation.

The annotation case might be possible in SPARQL Update - it needs both "add" and "delete".

rdf:annotation is covered by https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-xml/#section-Namespace (warning).

Isn't rdf:annotation with non-empty element content a parse error in RDF 1.1? (Emacs nxml mode seems to agree :-)

What's an example of what you are concerned about?