You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Discussions has indicated that the introduction of triple terms and reification needs some clarification.
Mainly, this proposal:
Explains triple terms as references to propositions, and clarifying that these as references are not asserted.
Replaces the problematic formulation:
Assertions on the triple term are made using the reifier.
and moves the theory of that note to the end of the section (and with it the mention of "contradictory").
Keeps the details about using reifiers in one paragraph of the introduction. That also adds the notion of "triple annotation" alongside "reifying triple", and relates to both in the comment about concrete syntaxes, and from the diagrams.
Puts the comment about concrete syntaxes in a distinct paragraph preceding the diagrams.
Finally, it:
Turns the final comment about nested triple terms into a note, and characterizing it as an advanced practice. (It might even be removed from this section, as there is a corresponding, neutral note in section 3.1 Triples.)
"A triple term is an RDF triple used as an RDF term in the object position of another triple."
-->
"A triple term is an RDF triple used as an RDF term in another triple."
"There can be multiple, distinct reifiers underlying the same abstract proposition, such as statements with different sources, or circumstances with different characteristics."
-->
"There can be multiple, distinct reifiers underlying the same abstract proposition, such as statements with different sources, or circumstances with different characteristics.
Also, the same reifier can reify multiple, distinct triple terms, which may express different propositional aspects of the same reifier."
"While a triple term may also have another triple term as an object, that is considered an advanced practice beyond the regular use of reifiers."
-->
DELETE (I don't how it helps or it is appropriate in RDF Concepts)
I'd like to combine the first two suggestions by @afs and the first by @franconi, and furthermore join the resulting first and second paragraphs into one; resulting in:
<p>A <a>triple term</a> is an [=RDF triple=] used as an [=RDF term=]
in another triple. This usage is a reference to a <a>proposition</a>. For this
triple to also be asserted, it must appear in a graph as an <a>asserted
triple</a>. This allows for statements to be made about statements
independent of their assertion within an <a>RDF graph</a>.
</p>
I've done the updates, and also think this is good to go. (Let's give it some more time for e.g. editorial adjustments; perhaps aim for merge in conjunction with Thursday's meeting.)
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry to chime in late with a request for change. I think the ambiguity in my first comment really needs to be fixed. My 2nd comment is more a matter of opinion, but I would like to discuss it.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Discussions has indicated that the introduction of triple terms and reification needs some clarification.
Mainly, this proposal:
Explains triple terms as references to propositions, and clarifying that these as references are not asserted.
Replaces the problematic formulation:
and moves the theory of that note to the end of the section (and with it the mention of "contradictory").
Keeps the details about using reifiers in one paragraph of the introduction. That also adds the notion of "triple annotation" alongside "reifying triple", and relates to both in the comment about concrete syntaxes, and from the diagrams.
Puts the comment about concrete syntaxes in a distinct paragraph preceding the diagrams.
Finally, it:
Preview | Diff