Difference between revisions of "Talk:Editing:Editing on Arguably"
15986523124 (talk | contribs) (Idea: Versioning for Claims Template.) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Then people can discuss versioning of the common Claim Template, which consists of only upper rhetorical ontology. | Then people can discuss versioning of the common Claim Template, which consists of only upper rhetorical ontology. | ||
Then when a new template is accepted here, it can be quickly updated across all pages (just find which are using v0.1 and then auto-add e.g. the 3 new fields which are included in v0.2). | Then when a new template is accepted here, it can be quickly updated across all pages (just find which are using v0.1 and then auto-add e.g. the 3 new fields which are included in v0.2). | ||
I like this idea of having versions of the claim template after we update the template. However, I'm not sure what is meant by "upper rhetorical ontology". Does this refer to 'the basic/fundamental categories'? For example: the category 'Theoretical' might be classed as part of the 'upper rhetorical ontology', whereas 'Scientific' might belong to a subcategory of 'Theoretical'. Please clarify for me :) [[User:Cyanide Taste Sampler|Cyanide Taste Sampler]] | |||
:I don't know what the guy meant who used that term. I'm assuming he meant something along of lines of the metastructure of arguments, but not sure specifically what he had in mind. As for claims template I think what you did is a great idea but we won't be carrying parallel branched versions. The whole encyclopedia's semantic system will rely on having a consistent one across all claims so just keep working on your parallel version and once you think it's ready, I'll do the work to make it the main template and ensure everything is backwards compatible. I'll introduce if statements so that old instances of the template do not have to have specific values for all parameters and it will still work. Basically, don't worry too much about the technicalities and the ifs and the for loops, I can handle that easily. Concentrate on the thinking around what could be interesting to document. For instance you added "Corollary of" I'm wondering what that means. Is it not the same thing as dependent of? [[User:JFG|JFG]] ([[User talk:JFG|talk]]) 01:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
I too anticipate there being only one Claim Template, not multiple. | |||
One Template to rule them all, | |||
One Template to find them, | |||
One Template to bring them all, | |||
And in orderliness bind them. | |||
You are right about 'Corollary Of' being redundant. I will remove it form the template. [[User:Cyanide Taste Sampler|Cyanide Taste Sampler]] | |||
Latest revision as of 02:09, 24 January 2022
One idea is to have a versioning structure for "The Claim Template". For example the current version can be frozen/snapshotted as v0.1. Then people can discuss versioning of the common Claim Template, which consists of only upper rhetorical ontology. Then when a new template is accepted here, it can be quickly updated across all pages (just find which are using v0.1 and then auto-add e.g. the 3 new fields which are included in v0.2).
I like this idea of having versions of the claim template after we update the template. However, I'm not sure what is meant by "upper rhetorical ontology". Does this refer to 'the basic/fundamental categories'? For example: the category 'Theoretical' might be classed as part of the 'upper rhetorical ontology', whereas 'Scientific' might belong to a subcategory of 'Theoretical'. Please clarify for me :) Cyanide Taste Sampler
- I don't know what the guy meant who used that term. I'm assuming he meant something along of lines of the metastructure of arguments, but not sure specifically what he had in mind. As for claims template I think what you did is a great idea but we won't be carrying parallel branched versions. The whole encyclopedia's semantic system will rely on having a consistent one across all claims so just keep working on your parallel version and once you think it's ready, I'll do the work to make it the main template and ensure everything is backwards compatible. I'll introduce if statements so that old instances of the template do not have to have specific values for all parameters and it will still work. Basically, don't worry too much about the technicalities and the ifs and the for loops, I can handle that easily. Concentrate on the thinking around what could be interesting to document. For instance you added "Corollary of" I'm wondering what that means. Is it not the same thing as dependent of? JFG (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I too anticipate there being only one Claim Template, not multiple. One Template to rule them all, One Template to find them, One Template to bring them all, And in orderliness bind them. You are right about 'Corollary Of' being redundant. I will remove it form the template. Cyanide Taste Sampler