- 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
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 UTC