W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: RDF datatyping, section 2.1

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:00:56 +0300
To: ext Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8E1FB38.1335E%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-04-16 15:53, "ext Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org> wrote:

> At 02:52 PM 4/16/02 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>>> If "canonical" representations are significant, then I would prefer to see
>>> them dealt with separately from these core concepts - in a separate section
>>> somewhere.
>> 
>> The following is a reply to this question I sent to Pat. It
>> may not be sufficiently motivating, but...
> 
> [...]
> 
>> So, I think that it is useful to leave it in, and it doesn't
>> get in the way of anything else. It may even be used in a more
>> significant way in future incarnations of RDF Datatyping.
> 
> Here's where I come from:  having additional (in-line) verbiage *does* get
> in the way of the most important thing, viz the reader's understanding of
> the fundamentals.
> 
> I recognize that you may feel that canonical types are important for some
> purposes:  I'd request that the discussion of these be placed in a separate
> section.

That's one option. I'll see what kind of general feedback
we get from the first public release.

Patrick

> #g
> 
> 
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>
> 
> 

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 09:12:13 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:30 EDT