-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
Write up a technical glossary #72
Comments
i dont think i got it clearly what you mean. technical terms like using the word "Spielwiese"? if you mean that yes we could add a wikipage inside this git repository. |
Yes, this could go in a wiki. I mean technical terms like "Spielwiese", "example", "textFormatter" and so on. |
Stuff like grammar for certain Spielwiesen, as described in #46 should go in this glossary as well. |
From #46: With regards to the Spielwiese Aussagenlogik the allowed grammar for formulae should be something like this:
Note: top and bot stand for verum and falsum respectively. The other keywords also correspond to their standard LaTeX-interpretations, i.e. they stand for How a sentence containing natural language or expressions from other Spielwiesen should look like, still needs to be done. |
I introduced / invented a term for the following case: Assume we have a prolog knowledge basis as follows:
Then the query |
@TimothyGillespie Just so I understand you correctly: Do you have a term for this now or do you not? I don't find a term by you anywhere at least. Or do you mean the word In the latter case: As known, Also another term that would fit, would be: I will leave you a file down below of a little write-up by me. I can also include the previous explanation in the glossary, of course. I will start it on Saturday, I think. In case you mean the kind of search that prolog does: I think Here the file with the the write-up: Termvaluation.pdf |
I think |
In case other developers pick this project up in the future we should write up a glossary of all technical terms we use. This will also prevent us to mix two equal terms in their meaning or using them interchangibly.
What do you think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: