- 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