RE: new UC&R draft: 1.40

-------- Original Message --------
> From: Kendall Clark <>
> Date: 10 May 2004 21:20
> 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" (" providing a graph pattern...") is
> better. Any thoughts on that?

Only that we ought to follow the terminology set up in:

Which talks of "RDF Triples" and "RDF Graph", especially as an RDF graph
isn't the general graph found in elsewhere graph theory (e.g. graph must
have at least one arc; RDF triples don't have literal subjects or bNodes for

"RDF Graph Pattern Matching" is OK.

> Kendall

Received on Monday, 10 May 2004 17:36:51 UTC