- 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>
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 UTC