Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

add document on semantics options and add options to terminology document #66

Open
wants to merge 13 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

pfps
Copy link
Contributor

@pfps pfps commented Jun 16, 2023

No description provided.

docs/rdf-terminology.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@pfps
Copy link
Contributor Author

pfps commented Jun 16, 2023

Yes, fix coming.


* [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.
Copy link
Member

@TallTed TallTed Jun 16, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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).

Suggested change
* [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.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@TallTed That phrase has been reworked to satisfy other concerns, but I did add the emphasis.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I only added the emphasis to highlight the phrase needing a rewrite... so I may suggest removing it when I see the rephrase.

docs/semantics.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@rat10
Copy link
Contributor

rat10 commented Jun 16, 2023

where the syntactic form of the arguments to triples is important, except that only the meaning of blank nodes is important.

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".
Also, this kind of language is still semanticists-speak. I would prefer a less concise, but more approachable version of "the meaning of blank nodes is important", e.g. "blank nodes are interpreted and mean the same as in neighbouring non-embedded triples, whereas other terms...". That "..." denotes a problem too - do syntactic terms in quoted triples refer to something in the realm of interpretation, just only in this specific syntactic form? If, as I assume, yes then that should be made more explicit as well.

Comment on lines 50 to 51
:b owl:sameAs :c .
<<_:a :b "4"^^xsd:int >> :d :e .
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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 .

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, good idea. I've fixed (to be uploaded soon).

docs/rdf-terminology.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@pchampin pchampin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Appart from the changes that I proposed, LGTM.


## Semi-transparent Semantics

In the semi-transparent (a.k.a. semi-opaque) semantics
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
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

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I added a full reference to the report

docs/semantics.md Show resolved Hide resolved
@pfps
Copy link
Contributor Author

pfps commented Jun 23, 2023

@rat10 The terminology bits are designed to be short, and they point to a longer document with more information.

docs/rdf-terminology.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/semantics.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pfps and others added 9 commits June 23, 2023 14:46
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
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
Update semantics.md to improve example understanding
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants