-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
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
Adds RDF term equality definitions #161
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
…DF term equality', and 'triple equality'
@@ -925,8 +952,6 @@ <h3>Graph Comparison</h3> | |||
the triple (|s|, |p|, |o|) is in |G| if and only if | |||
the triple ( |M|(|s|), |M|(|p|), |M|(|o|) ) is in <var>G'</var>.</p> | |||
|
|||
<p>See also: <a>IRI equality</a>, <a>literal term equality</a>.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note that I have removed this one because the cross-references to these definitions are integrated directly into the definition above now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The only change that I really "request" is the one in 'Graph Comparison', because (unless I'm missing something) it introduces an error.
The others are merely an expression of my preferences, but I can live without them.
<li>For every [=literal=] |lit|, |M|(|lit|) is a [=literal=] that is [=literal term equality|equal=] to |lit|.</li> | ||
<li>For every [=IRI=] |iri|, |M|(|iri|) is an [=IRI=] that is [=IRI equality|equal=] to |iri|.</li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I could live with that, but I find it needlessly verbose and confusing. The point here is not to produce a new value that happens to be equal to the argument, the point is to return the argument itself...
I would slightly prefer to keep '=' here.
<li>|t| and <var>t'</var> are [=IRIs=] that are [=IRI equality|equal=].</li> | ||
<li>|t| and <var>t'</var> are [=literals=] that are [=literal term equality|equal=].</li> | ||
<li>|t| and <var>t'</var> are [=blank nodes=] that are [=blank node equality|equal=].</li> | ||
<li>|t| and <var>t'</var> are [=triple terms=] that are [=triple term equality|equal=].</li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
<li>|t| and <var>t'</var> are [=IRIs=] that are [=IRI equality|equal=].</li> | |
<li>|t| and <var>t'</var> are [=literals=] that are [=literal term equality|equal=].</li> | |
<li>|t| and <var>t'</var> are [=blank nodes=] that are [=blank node equality|equal=].</li> | |
<li>|t| and <var>t'</var> are [=triple terms=] that are [=triple term equality|equal=].</li> | |
<li>|t| and <var>t'</var> are [=IRIs=] that are [=IRI equality|equal=] (per [=IRI equality=]).</li> | |
<li>|t| and <var>t'</var> are [=literals=] that are [=literal term equality|equal=] (per [=literal term equality=]).</li> | |
<li>|t| and <var>t'</var> are [=blank nodes=] that are [=blank node equality|equal=] (per [=blank node equality=]).</li> | |
<li>|t| and <var>t'</var> are [=triple terms=] that are [=triple equality|equal=] (per [=triple equality=]).</li> |
I would not fight for this change, but I think it makes the rendered text more readable. It can easily be overlooked that the four occurrences of "equal" do not refer to the same definition.
Also, I think it is better to refer directly to "triple equality" than to "triple term equality". See my remark below.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Or the pattern:
<li>|t| and <var>t'</var> are [=IRIs=] that are [=IRI equality|equal as IRIs=].</li>
<p><dfn>Triple term equality</dfn>: | ||
Since triple terms are [=triples=], equality of triple terms is the same as [=triple equality=].</p> | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
<p><dfn>Triple term equality</dfn>: | |
Since triple terms are [=triples=], equality of triple terms is the same as [=triple equality=].</p> | |
<p>Triple term equality: | |
Since triple terms are [=triples=], equality of triple terms is the same as [=triple equality=].</p> | |
For the sake of regularity, I understand that it is desirable to have a paragraph about "Triple term equality". But I think that making it a definition is not required and adds confusion. As this paragraph explains, triples terms are triples, so triple equality applies here.
There isn't a preview/diff? Is this because the boilerplate was not included in the description? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One suggestion, non-blocking.
Strange. I have never put anything special in my PRs before. What would this boilerplate be? |
Co-authored-by: Pierre-Antoine Champin <[email protected]>
It should be added when the PR is created via the github UI. I don't know if it can be retrospectively added. #159 for example has ("edit" the description to see it):
|
Closes #154 by adding definitions of 'blank node equality', 'triple term equality', 'RDF term equality', and 'triple equality'. Additionally, this PR makes the definitions of graph comparison and dataset comparison more explicit by using these notions of equality.