RE: Datatypes, abstract syntax / data model.

> Hmmm... can we get away with saying something like: "graphs that differ
> only in the specific literal forms used to represent the same
> values may re
> regarded as interchangeable"?  (That's a fudge, I'm trying to
> stop short of
> saying they're equal, because that imposes a burden on
> applications to know
> about the datatypes.

I quite like this fudge.

I think Patrick exagerates the extent to which one shouldn't discard
original intent. (comments do get stripped). But given the decision that the
execution of the l2v mapping is outside of RDF (which I think sounded like
the majority opinion at the telecon), we can't use c14n inside equality.

Jeremy