add document on semantics options and add options to terminology document #66
Conversation
|
Yes, fix coming. |
docs/rdf-terminology.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| * [Opaque semantics] – Any semantics for quoted triples where the syntactic form of the arguments to triples is important. See [docs/semantics.md] for more information. | ||
|
|
||
| * [Semi-opaque (semi-transparent semantics] – Any semantics for quoted triples where the syntactic form of the arguments to triples is important, except that only the meaning of blank nodes is important. See [docs/semantics.md] for more information. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know this punctuation change is appropriate. I'm also memorializing the need for rephrasing of "except that only the meaning of blank nodes is important" (which may also include rephrasing other parts of term description).
| * [Semi-opaque (semi-transparent semantics] – Any semantics for quoted triples where the syntactic form of the arguments to triples is important, except that only the meaning of blank nodes is important. See [docs/semantics.md] for more information. | |
| * [Semi-opaque (semi-transparent) semantics] – Any semantics for quoted triples where the syntactic form of the arguments to triples is important, _except that only the meaning of blank nodes is important_. See [docs/semantics.md] for more information. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@TallTed That phrase has been reworked to satisfy other concerns, but I did add the emphasis.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I only added the emphasis to highlight the phrase needing a rewrite... so I may suggest removing it when I see the rephrase.
As I read it the last (emphasized) half-sentence effectively overrules the preceding half-sentence. The meaning of the whole sentence IMO is that "only the meaning of blank nodes is important, everything else doesn't matter". |
docs/semantics.md
Outdated
| :b owl:sameAs :c . | ||
| <<_:a :b "4"^^xsd:int >> :d :e . |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Lines like 50-51 here exemplify why I want to see the optional whitespace at both ends of any given enclosure. <<_:a looks like it is one term, rather than being expandable to << _:a.
Further, in documentation like this whole page, I find comprehensibility to be vastly increased by adding optional whitespace such that the columns visually align from start to finish, which would make these two lines look like the following:
:b owl:sameAs :c .
<< _:a :b "4"^^xsd:int >> :d :e .
— which match up with line 59, which has the widest quoted triple as well as the widest object within a quoted triple —
<< _:a :b "4"^^xsd:integer >> :d :e .
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, good idea. I've fixed (to be uploaded soon).
docs/semantics.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ## Semi-transparent Semantics | ||
|
|
||
| In the semi-transparent (a.k.a. semi-opaque) semantics |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| In the semi-transparent (a.k.a. semi-opaque) semantics | |
| In the semi-transparent (a.k.a. semi-opaque) semantics proposed in the CG report |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I added a full reference to the report
|
@rat10 The terminology bits are designed to be short, and they point to a longer document with more information. |
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Keep the use of xsd:int for the forth variant consistent across different examples
In my own and painful experience some small hints can make it much easier for non-logicians to understand what is going on and what an example tries to convey. The concrete changes I propose may not be fully correct or grasp what's going to the fullest extend, so take them as a prototype to illustrate the issue. I deliberately used the term 'means' instead of 'denotes' or 'refers to' beacuse it is more approachable, but the latter might be more suitable as they are used much more frequently in the specs.
The document should explain in greater detail to non-logicians (which I assume to be its main target audience, right?) what it means that the syntax of a term is important. It doesn't mean that the term is just a string (right?!) but that its interpretation is restricted. This pull request tries to explain it, and although it probably fails some explanation IMO is necessary.
Update semantics.md to improve consistency across example sections
Update semantics.md to better describe the meaning of opacity
fixed typo
Update semantics.md to improve example understanding
No description provided.