Rosetta Code:Village Pump/SMW Examples by language and concept: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(I'd far prefer a solution derived from queries than autogenerated properties.) |
(Need to keep the concept and language together.) |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
:::<nowiki>[[demonstration of::language]]</nowiki> seems redundant because we already have <nowiki>[[implemented in language::language]]</nowiki>. I really think it's best to keep it all in one tag and let the property pages do some of the work. If we do it with the two tags then we will have two property pages which don't mean what we want until they're connected on some other page with a query. If each language has its own property page then things are already wrapped up nicely. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 14:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
:::<nowiki>[[demonstration of::language]]</nowiki> seems redundant because we already have <nowiki>[[implemented in language::language]]</nowiki>. I really think it's best to keep it all in one tag and let the property pages do some of the work. If we do it with the two tags then we will have two property pages which don't mean what we want until they're connected on some other page with a query. If each language has its own property page then things are already wrapped up nicely. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 14:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::: That's the purpose of semantic properties and queries, though, to be queried against to produce results dependent on data relationships. I'm guessing you meant {{prop|demonstration of language}} was redundant because we have {{prop|implemented in language}}, and you would be right. This kind of thing is why I created {{prop|implemented in language}} in the first place. I also don't like each language having its own property page from the perspective that semantic properties are supposed to describe simple relationships, as opposed to describing complicated things. Defining a semantic query is pretty simple; SMW comes with [[Special:Ask]] to help you do it. They're also not significantly computationally expensive; we have three of them on the main page. I'd far prefer a solution derived from queries than additional autogenerated properties; that's why we got SMW and MultiCategorySearch in the first place. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 15:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
:::: That's the purpose of semantic properties and queries, though, to be queried against to produce results dependent on data relationships. I'm guessing you meant {{prop|demonstration of language}} was redundant because we have {{prop|implemented in language}}, and you would be right. This kind of thing is why I created {{prop|implemented in language}} in the first place. I also don't like each language having its own property page from the perspective that semantic properties are supposed to describe simple relationships, as opposed to describing complicated things. Defining a semantic query is pretty simple; SMW comes with [[Special:Ask]] to help you do it. They're also not significantly computationally expensive; we have three of them on the main page. I'd far prefer a solution derived from queries than additional autogenerated properties; that's why we got SMW and MultiCategorySearch in the first place. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 15:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::The problem is keeping the task tied to a concept and language ''pair''. The way you're proposing it we could have a situation like this: |
|||
<pre>=={{header|C}}== |
|||
{{demonstration of|for loops|C}} |
|||
... |
|||
=={{header|Java}}== |
|||
{{demonstration of|polymorphism|Java}}</pre> |
|||
:::::That would give the task C and Java for the language property (whichever it ends up being) and "for loops" and "plymorphism" for the concept property. Connecting the concept and language properties makes it look like the task shows polymorphism in C and for loops in Java, but that's not how they were meant to be tagged. For that to be the intent, the intent of this system would have to be "{{{TASK}}} demonstrates {{{PROGRAMMING CONCEPT}}} and has examples in {{{LANGUAGE}}}". I want to make sure the concept stays with the language. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 16:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::*This of course is dependent on dicussions about the property organization |
::*This of course is dependent on dicussions about the property organization |
||
:*This template should go under each language header as the examples get tagged, and it would not display anything. We would need one template for each concept (a la {{tmpl|works with}}). |
:*This template should go under each language header as the examples get tagged, and it would not display anything. We would need one template for each concept (a la {{tmpl|works with}}). |
||