- From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:00:55 +0200
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- CC: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
>>> The set of data types you consider for the RIF document.
>>
>> Ok ,then write it:
>>
>> "Definition. Let T be the set of considered datatypes. A datatype map D
>> is a conforming datatype map if it satisfies the following conditions:"
>>
>> -->
>> "Definition. Let T be the set of considered datatypes. A datatype map D
>> is \emph{conforming with T} if it satisfies the following conditions:"
>>
>
> In that case the set of considered data types needs to be made explicit
> whenever referring to conforming datatype maps. From my point of view,
> this would be clutter making the definitions harder to read.
> Besides, it is already obvious from the definition what the datatype map
> conforms with.
>
Reading again the definitions throughout the document, I realized that
in some cases it is indeed not clear what the considered data types are,
because there is not always a combination in the context.
So, I will adopt your proposal and always make explicit what the
datatypes are that the datatype map conforms with.
Best, Jos
--
Jos de Bruijn debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224 http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
If knowledge can create problems, it is not
through ignorance that we can solve them.
- Isaac Asimov
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 14:01:29 UTC