Re: UC&R ready for review

>   RDF Data Access Use Cases and Requirements
>   Revision: 1.138, Date: 2004/10/01 19:56:52
>is ready for review for publication.

Further to
ACTION PatH: Review UC&R draft appearing around Oct1, for Oct5 telcon
I have reviewed the above and find it suitable for publication.

Minior editorial quibbles follow, all optional.

2.3 consider relocating figure 3 to later in the section.
2.5 Niel? (Neil?)
2.9 "programmatically process" ? (= program ?)
2.15 Mr X has two personae, why does he need three PPDs?
2.17 Suggest 'class tree hierarchy' --> 'subclass hierarchy', since 
classes need not (and often do not ) form trees under subclassing.
3.10 'note' Is there a link to something in the WG archives that 
could be inserted here?
4.2.1/4.2.2 There is an obvious question here which is left 
unanswered, which is *how* to refer to the source or sources. Also it 
is rather grating that these two requirements use non-graph 
terminology ('source', 'repository', etc.) , suggesting for example 
that these are talking about something distinct from what 4.2.3 is 
talking about.
4.9 Does'directly' here imply anything special? Suggest either add 
brief expansion/exposition, or else omit.

IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell

Received on Monday, 4 October 2004 20:07:10 UTC