- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 13:53:20 +0100
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
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