Proposel improvements on the section about "triple-term based reification" #71
Conversation
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
I assume that the original intent was something like "the expression 'triple term' refers to an RDF triple used as the object of another triple" but the sentence is about the *construct*, not the *expression*. It may be read as "a triple term refers to/denotes an RDF triple", which is wrong. I think the proposed rewording respects the original intent, but removes the confusion.
because the triple term can only occur in the object position... I think the next sentence captures the same idea without being confusing.
confusion: - it talks about the '*reifier* resource', conflating the reifier with its denotee (the reifier is a term, not the denotee of that term) - depending how you read it, it implies that the reifiers denote the proposition, or that the denotee of the reifiers denote the proposition. Neither of these readings are true. little value: - if we remove the wrong bits above, what remains is "a set of triples with the same subject is a description of the resource denoted by that subject" !!
The original wording mixes syntax and semantics: "resource (reifier)" is "[semantics] ([syntax]), while "triple (proposition)" is "[syntax] ([semantics])". Furthermore, I don't think the description of the property should talk about the syntax.
- it departs from the style of other term description in the doc - I disagree that this triple states that 'R is a Resource' (that is true regardless of this triple) - similarly, the fact that the triple term denotes a proposition is true regardless of the reifying triple - I don't see the value of explaining that S P and O are the subject, predictate and object of <<(S P O)>>; it seems quite obvious, and is not related to rdf:reifies - the paragraph conflates syntax and semantics in several places
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
in order to explain the rational between each change, I made them in separate commits, with my explanations in the commit message. So inspecting each commit individually is probably a better idea than using the "Files changed" view of Github.
Preview | Diff