W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: new UC&R draft: 1.40

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 21:08:46 +0100
To: <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001a01c436ca$9bc3ca50$0a01a8c0@atlas>

Kendall,

> For the telcon tomorrow, please try to glance at version
> 1.40,

OK - will do.  And thanks fo rpointing out the areas of change.  Have there
been significant changes to the Use Cases?

I'll take a complete look at it tomorrow before the telecon but I did notice
that the title to "3.1 Multiple Triple Matching" has got out of step with
the text and is not discussed in email.  The title in the agenda is
"Multiple RDF triple matching"

The requirement title might be better as "RDF Graph Matching" to match (sic)
the text change to graph patterns as of 0269.  "RDF Graph" is a defined term
in the RDF concepts.

(Well - it shows I've looked at the new draft at least!)

	Andy

-------- Original Message --------
From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org <>
Date: 10 May 2004 17:32

Peeps,

For the telcon tomorrow, please try to glance at version
1.40, or higher, of

 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/UseCases

which I have just checked in. Some of the notable changes include
rewording several requirements, including some we seem to have reached
some consensus about recently.  

I've also included a more complete Design Objectives section, which
includes 6 or 7 requirements that have some support. 

I've also started working on a set of technical terms for our design
space, to be included in an eventual glossary. I don't expect that will
necessarily live in the pub'd draft of UC&R, but I'd like to keep them
there for now as a reminder to myself and to others, as a way of trying
out new terms, and because I don't want to start another doc just yet. :>

Best,
Kendall Clark

PS--I've been having mail troubles lately (that is, I've go entirely too
much mail!); thus, if you review 1.40 and don't see something you were
expecting to see, the most prudent course of action is to email me
directly with your question, comment, or patch.   
Received on Monday, 10 May 2004 16:09:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:19 GMT