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

Re: new UC&R draft: 1.40

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 16:19:57 -0400
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: kendall@monkeyfist.com, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040510201957.GA20997@monkeyfist.com>

On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:08:46PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

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

No.

> 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"

Well, those are *titles*, names, really, which means (in my mind, at
least) that shorter is better than longer. I like "Triple" and "RDF
Triple" are exactly equivalent in most cases in this document,
certainly in titles. That is, I prefer the shorter title and don't
consider it out of phase with the text. (But I'm open to being
convinced that this is wrong...)

> 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.

Hmm, yes, that's more convincing; though I think "Graph Pattern
Matching" ("...by providing a graph pattern...") is better. Any
thoughts on that?

Kendall
Received on Monday, 10 May 2004 16:22:07 GMT

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