Skip to content

Some improved language, punctuation, and markup in rdf-semantics #126

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Jul 31, 2025
Merged

Some improved language, punctuation, and markup in rdf-semantics #126

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
95a370d
Some improved language, punctuation, and markup in rdf-semantics
TallTed Mar 27, 2025
6dbbf4f
delete extra space
TallTed Mar 28, 2025
aa727c1
Editing text to enable removal of mdash punctuation
TallTed Jul 24, 2025
2bd3703
re-fixing "standardize apart" dfn
TallTed Jul 24, 2025
8279d57
remove `graph described by the`
TallTed Jul 25, 2025
345ccd4
`represented by` -> `for`
TallTed Jul 25, 2025
a438b49
`This new document describes a graph containing` -> `The graph for th…
TallTed Jul 25, 2025
3599e72
`more properly described by a surface form such as the following` -> …
TallTed Jul 25, 2025
6984730
`standardized</a> apart` -> `standardized apart</a>`
TallTed Jul 25, 2025
95058f9
remove ineffectual "also"
TallTed Jul 31, 2025
d691856
relocates ground graph is lean sentence
TallTed Jul 31, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
40 changes: 22 additions & 18 deletions spec/index.html
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -285,26 +285,26 @@ <h2>Notation and Terminology</h2>
<p>Two graphs are <a data-cite="RDF12-CONCEPTS#dfn-graph-isomorphism">isomorphic</a> when each maps into the other by a 1:1 mapping on blank nodes. Isomorphic graphs are mutual instances with an invertible instance
mapping. As blank nodes have no particular identity beyond their location in a graph, we will often treat isomorphic graphs as identical.</p>

<p >An RDF graph is <dfn>lean</dfn> if it has no instance which is
<p>An RDF graph is <dfn>lean</dfn> if it has no instance which is
a <a>proper subgraph</a> of itself. Non-lean graphs have internal redundancy
and express the same content as their lean <a>subgraphs</a>. For example, the graph</p>
and express the same content as their lean <a>subgraphs</a>. For example, the graph&nbsp;&mdash;</p>

<pre class="example" title="Non-lean graph">
ex:a ex:p _:x .
_:y ex:p _:x .
</pre>

<p >is not lean, but</p>
<p>&mdash;&nbsp;is not lean, but&nbsp;&mdash;</p>

<pre class="example" title="Lean graph">
ex:a ex:p _:x .
_:x ex:p _:x .
</pre>

<p>is lean. A <a>ground RDF graph</a> is lean. </p>
<p>&mdash;&nbsp;is lean. A <a>ground RDF graph</a> is lean.</p>

<section id="unions_merges">
<h3>Shared blank nodes, unions and merges</h3>
<h3>Shared blank nodes, unions, and merges</h3>

<p>Graphs share <a>blank nodes</a> only if they are derived from graphs
described by documents or other structures (such as an RDF dataset)
Expand All @@ -313,7 +313,8 @@ <h3>Shared blank nodes, unions and merges</h3>
graph are the same as the blank nodes coming from other downloads of
the same document or from the same <a>RDF source</a>.</p>

<p> RDF applications which manipulate concrete syntaxes for RDF which use <a data-cite="RDF12-CONCEPTS#dfn-blank-node-identifier">blank node identifiers</a>
<p> RDF applications which manipulate concrete syntaxes for RDF which use
<a data-cite="RDF12-CONCEPTS#dfn-blank-node-identifier">blank node identifiers</a>
should take care to keep track of the identity of the blank nodes they identify.
Blank node identifiers often have a local scope,
so when RDF from different sources is combined,
Expand All @@ -324,39 +325,42 @@ <h3>Shared blank nodes, unions and merges</h3>
to identify a blank node, but unless these documents are in a shared identifier scope
or are derived from a common source,
the occurrences of "<code>_:x</code>" in one document
will identify a different blank node than the one in the graph described by the other document.
will identify a different blank node than the occurrences of "<code>_:x</code>"
in the graph described by the other document.
When graphs are formed by combining RDF from multiple sources,
it may be necessary to <dfn class="no-export lint-ignore">standardize</dfn> apart the blank node identifiers
by replacing them by others which do not occur in the other document(s).
For example, the two graphs represented by the following texts:</p>
it may be necessary to <dfn class="no-export lint-ignore">standardize</dfn> the blank node identifiers
Copy link
Contributor

@doerthe doerthe Mar 28, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"standardize apart" is a fixed term (Logic Programming) and I would therefore not change that

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How about this?

Suggested change
it may be necessary to <dfn class="no-export lint-ignore">standardize</dfn> the blank node identifiers
it may be necessary to <dfn class="no-export lint-ignore">standardize apart</dfn> the blank node identifiers

Copy link
Contributor

@afs afs Mar 28, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

RDF Semantics is not defining "standardize apart".

Just remove the dfn markup to leave the text:

"it may be necessary to standardize apart the blank node identifiers"

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think @afs advises well (hence part of this text suggestion), but based on what I found in documentation Google showed me when I asked "what does "Standardize apart" mean?", I've reordered some words, which I think makes the sentence more readable. (We might consider adding an external link to some Logic Programming text which goes further into this subject, which I believe we have not made a prerequisite for readers of our specifications.)

Suggested change
it may be necessary to <dfn class="no-export lint-ignore">standardize</dfn> the blank node identifiers
it may be necessary to standardize the blank node identifiers apart,

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The operation name is "standardize apart" as @doerthe notes.
The google hits has it as the two words together each time.

For better or worse, the RDF Semantics introduction starts as the document goes on:
"This document defines a model-theoretic semantics ..."

(and why I haven't done a technical review of RDF Semantics.)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ping oh ye experts in the field (@doerthe @franconi @niklasl (are there other such experts among us?))! Please chime in on my latest suggested change?

I think it is ok, as it uses the appropriate term.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"scare" quotes should not be used around 'standardize apart'

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why not <dfn class="no-export lint-ignore">standardize</dfn> ?. There is a link to that later in the document. If we remove the dfn context here, we also need to remove the link (line 361). Alternatively, the dfn could be for "standardize apart"

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

[@doerthe] Alternatively, the dfn could be for "standardize apart"

I could go for that. In fact, I did on March 28.

[@afs] RDF Semantics is not defining "standardize apart".

The dfn tag does not necessarily indicate that this document is defining a term for use in other documents. It can and often does indicate the location of the working definition being used within this document, which linkage is useful for readers unfamiliar with such niche terminology as "standardize apart".

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You can use dfn with data-cite which will style and reference the term, but not define it within the document. Clicking on it would take you to the data-cite reference, which must be of the form SPECREF#anchor. But, not strictly necessary if people reading this would understand the terminology without an explicit reference.

by replacing them with other identifiers which do not occur in the other document(s).
For example, the two graphs represented by the following texts&nbsp;&mdash;</p>

<p><code>ex:a ex:p _:x . </code><br/><br/>
<img src="RDF12SemanticsDiagrams/example1.svg" alt="Graph 1" /></p>

<p><code>ex:b ex:q _:x . </code><br/><br/>
<img src="RDF12SemanticsDiagrams/example2.svg" alt="Graph 2" ></p>

<p>contain four nodes. Their union would therefore also contain four nodes:</p>
<p>&mdash;&nbsp;contain four nodes. Their union would therefore also contain four nodes&nbsp;&mdash;</p>

<p><img src="RDF12SemanticsDiagrams/example4.svg" alt="Union Graph"></p>

<p>However, the document formed by simply concatenating these textual surface representations:</p>
<p>However, the document formed by simply concatenating these textual surface representations&nbsp;&mdash;</p>

<p><code>ex:a ex:p _:x .<br/>
ex:b ex:q _:x .</code><br/></p>

<p>describes a graph containing three nodes:</p>
<p>&mdash;&nbsp;describes a graph containing three nodes&nbsp;&mdash;</p>

<p><img src="RDF12SemanticsDiagrams/example3.svg" alt="Incorrect Union Graph"></p>

<p> since the two occurrences of the blank node identifier "<code>_:x</code>" occurring in a common identifier scope identify the same blank node. The four-node union of these two graphs is more properly described by a surface form such as:</p>
<p>&mdash;&nbsp;since the two occurrences of the blank node identifier "<code>_:x</code>
occurring in a common identifier scope identify the same blank node. The four-node union
of these two graphs is more properly described by a surface form such as&nbsp;&mdash;</p>

<p><code>ex:a ex:p _:x1 .<br/>
ex:b ex:q _:x2 .</code></p>

<p>in which the blank node identifiers have been <a data-lt="standardize">standardized</a>
<p>&mdash;&nbsp;in which the blank node identifiers have been <a data-lt="standardize">standardized</a>
apart to avoid conflating the distinct blank nodes.
(The particular blank node identifiers used have no significance, only that they are distinct.)</p>
(The particular blank node identifiers used have no significance; it matters only that they are distinct.)</p>

<p>It is possible for two or more graphs to share a blank node,
for example if they are <a>subgraphs</a> of a single larger graph or derived from a common source.
Expand All @@ -369,11 +373,11 @@ <h3>Shared blank nodes, unions and merges</h3>
which occur in more than one graph, to be distinct in each graph.
The resulting graph is called the <dfn data-lt="RDF graph merge">merge</dfn>.
The merge of <a>subgraphs</a> of a graph may be larger than the original graph.
For example, the result of merging the two singleton subgraphs of the three-node graph</p>
For example, the result of merging the two singleton subgraphs of the three-node graph&nbsp;&mdash;</p>

<p><img src="RDF12SemanticsDiagrams/example3.svg" alt="Three-node Graph"></p>

<p>is the four-node graph</p>
<p>&mdash;&nbsp;is the four-node graph&nbsp;&mdash;</p>

<p><img src="RDF12SemanticsDiagrams/example4.svg" alt="Four-node Graph"></p>

Expand Down
Loading