Update document for RDF 1.2 publication

[afs]

The document needs a pass of updating :: a list of some items --

Status paragraph is out of date.

All Change Notes - at least, update and put in context, IMO better, remove and have change notes for 1.1 and 1.2.
Use an appendix for any 1.0 -> 1.1 notes or simply link to rdf11-semantics somewhere.

pfps: DONE - see PR #79

"The previous version" means RDF 1.0.

pfps: DONE - as part of PR #79

Refers to Concepts "Section 3.5" and it is the refs as "Section 3.5"
It is not section 3.5 any more and the name is [not] "Section 3.5"

Refs has "Section 5"

"name" is used both formally and informally. Add links to "name" for formal uses.

Sort out "RDF PlainLiteral" text and reference (only applies to RDF 1.0)

Echnida warnings:
https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/actions/runs/13081148852/job/36504762412?pr=75#step:3:933
"Privacy Considerations" missing
"Security Considerations" missing

[pfps]

@afs What's wrong with the status paragraph, except for the editor's note?

[pfps]

The fix for the name of the sections is in PR #80

[afs]

"The technical content of the document is unchanged, only minor editorial changes have been made."

[pfps]

"The technical content of the document is unchanged, only minor editorial changes have been made."

See PR #81

[pfps]

Sort out "RDF PlainLiteral" text and reference (only applies to RDF 1.0)

I think that all is OK here. The datatype is a relic and should not be used, but where it is used there is a document that defines it.

[pfps]

See #82 for the name issue.

[afs]

Sort out "RDF PlainLiteral" text and reference (only applies to RDF 1.0)

I think that all is OK here. The datatype is a relic and should not be used, but where it is used there is a document that defines it.

Then state it is a relic.

This is "RDF 1.2 Semantics". "RDF PlainLiteral" talks about an RDF 1.0 concept that does not exist in RDF 1.2

[pfps]

Semantics is about making sense of RDF graphs. If an RDF graph has rdf:plainLiteral literals should they be interpreted differently than they were in the past?

If there should be some guidance on the status of rdf:plainLiteral that should probably go in Concepts.

[afs]

If an RDF graph has rdf:plainLiteral literals should they be interpreted differently than they were in the past?

I didn't say "interpret differently".

1. RDF PlainLiteral should not be used in RDF syntaxes - and the correct use now yields xsd:string or rdf:langStirng.
2. It does not requires special treatment - it has a regular L2V.

[pfps]

I agree that it is not a good idea to use rdf:plainLiteral. But I don't think that Semantics is the right place to say so.

If it is used, however, it is to be used as in the referenced document. I think that the current wording makes that point.

[afs]

Why call out rdf:PlainLiteral? The same is true for any datatype with a L2V that is a function of the lexical form - everything except rdf:langString and rdf:dirLangString.

[pfps]

Because there is a mandated L2V for this IRI, at least historically. I suppose that the WG could vote to remove this mandate - I'll create an issue. See #84.