Re: RDF datatyping, section 2.1

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.

#g


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

Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 08:46:33 UTC