Quoted triples

[gkellogg]

• Changed embedded triple to quoted triple in the editor's draft.
• embTriple => quotedTriple, embSubject => qTSubject, embObject => qTObject.
• EmbTriple => QuotedTriple, EmbTP => QuotedTP, EmbSubjectOrObject => QTSubjectOrObject, VarOrTermOrEmbTP => VarOrTermOrQuotedTP, ExprEmbTP => ExprQuotedTP.

Fixes #184.

---

Preview | Diff

[gkellogg]

Some nits you may, or may not agree with.

[TallTed]

Github apparently gets confused when an in-flight review contains suggestions to text that get changed between the start and submission of that review. I re-suggested the two that leapt out at me. Hopefully everything else gets through.

[gkellogg]

That should have all your changes, @TallTed, thanks!

[TallTed]

I'm a little concerned about not explicitly saying that the components of quoted triples are not interpreted (i.e., that quoted triples are not asserted when quoted, though they are when annotated) until discussing the examples (which discussion might well be skimmed over or ignored entirely).

It might be worth also including a plain language discussion of a quoted statement which is not asserted when quoting it, e.g., "Alice said, 'The Moon is made of Green Cheese.'", where I'm asserting that Alice stated something, but not asserting the something she stated; vs "The Moon is made of Green Cheese. Alice agreed." or the like...

[afs]

How about making:

A triple can be used as an asserted triple, a quoted triple, or both, in a given graph.

into

A triple can be used as an asserted triple, or used as a quoted triple, or both, in a given graph.

which is strengthening existing text to stress that there is no connection.

I don't think an English example can be robust enough for the document. Depending on use of " and ' is not so friendly for i18n. Not all languages quote that way.

FWIW: << was motivated by U+00AB: 'left-pointing double angle quotation mark'.

[TallTed]

How about ... strengthening existing text to stress that there is no connection.

Sure, that also works. Applied above.

I don't think an English example can be robust enough for the document. Depending on use of " and ' is not so friendly for i18n. Not all languages quote that way.

I'm certainly not suggesting removal of the existing examples.

I would hope, perhaps forlornly, that someone who didn't understand the English (or multi-lingual) textual examples would take that as a hint to pay more attention to the subsequent serialization examples. The clarity of the English textual examples might improve with use of the almost comical smart quotes, ❛ ❜ ❝ ❞...

FWIW: << was motivated by U+00AB: 'left-pointing double angle quotation mark'.

Textual examples in various languages using their typical quotation marks would be a bonus. (FWIW, I find all of these in the "Emoji and Symbols" of my macOS " « » ‘ ’ ‚ ‛ “ ” „ ‟ ‹ › ❛ ❜ ❝ ❞ ❮ ❯ 〝 〞 〟 ＂󠀢󠀢󠀢 ❟ ❠.)

[TallTed]

Changes made previously appear to have been lost before this step... This sentence in particular was changed significantly and necessarily -- there are no "enclosed RDF triples"; there are "enclosed predicate + object pairs" (or however I phrased it previously).

[afs]

I've been suspicious that some suggestions were lost earlier, possibly because we are doing very fine grained edits and git only looks at lines. Could you point out the changes because in the UI I see, I don't see them and also maybe close of other missed.

Here, I edited the latest github working copy as you can see from the commit.

[TallTed]

I have to hope they've all been caught. I don't have a query that works against my brain to get the editing nits I've already picked... (One downside to such a long-lived and much-massaged PR.)

[gkellogg]

I've been going through things that weren't merged to re-surface them; there are a couple open for @afs to review. Still, I'm sure we'll find some way to further improve the document after merge.

[TallTed]

Please reapply my previous edits...

[afs]

"for merging once editors are satisfied"
https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2021-07-16.html#t03

Are we ready to merge this now?

(Obviously if anything turns up it can be handled in the editors draft)

cc: @pchampin @hartig