Improve intro figure

[pchampin]

New text in the boxes, which hopefully makes their relationship more obvious.

---

Preview | Diff

[afs]

Nice.

If using text to create the linkages, then having the section two box at the top with five boxes below:

                           § 2. Concepts and Abstract Syntax
                                can be...

... queried with                      ... interpreted through         ... represented by
§ 4. SPARQL-star Query Language       § 6. RDF-star Semantics         § 7. RDF-star vocabulary

... updated with                       ... serialized with
§ 5. SPARQL-star Update                § 3. Concrete Syntaxes

[TallTed]

It is very odd to have the boxes in the diagram numbered out of their presentation order there, particularly the §3 and §6 boxes.

I haven't considered it well, but it seems that the diagram should present those boxes in the same order as their numbers, so either

• the boxes need renumbering and retitling to match the current doc section order, or
• the sections need reordering to match the diagram, and the boxes then need renumbering to match

[pchampin]

@afs @TallTed here is a new layout which addresses both your concerns

[hartig]

I like this option (with the latest changes) better than #214

[gkellogg]

I also prefer this to #214.

[pchampin]

This was discussed during today's meeting: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2021-10-15.html#t04

[ericprud]

I wonder if it's clearer to

s/... interpreted through
  § 6. RDF-star Semantics
 /... formally described with
  § 6. RDF-star Semantics
 /

You can't really query without interpreting the graph so my first inclination was to push the

... queried with
§ 4. SPARQL-star Query Language

to be on the far side of interpreted through, perhaps with lines indicating the dependency. But then I thought that most people probably felt they could write queries without grokking the semantics, which led to formally described with.

[pchampin]

@ericprud the original label was "reasoning", which is probably more to-the-point. Not sure why I changed it to "interpreted", which I agree is fuzzier. Would "... reasoned on with" work?

NB: I'll still merge this PR, but that does not prevent some further fine tuning...