Talk:Web template system (terminology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Problems of UNDER CONSTRUCTION ARTICLES need consensus and to solve. Here we may be CENTRALIZE Talk about "template series terminology"... but need rescue of the previous Talks.

Contents

[edit] Goals of this article

Is to be permanent or temporary?

I think that is a judgement call. It seems as though this article series is big enough to justify a stand-alone terminology "page", but I mentioned elsewhere that certain terms on this page justify treatment somewhere in the "main" body of the article(s) as well as on this page (e.g., Good separation principles, I think we agree, is one such section, it is a core principle). One reason this page was created was because it seemed a little overwhelming to have *all* these items in the article body, in a non-alphabetized sequence. Any thoughts? dr.ef.tymac 19:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
About stand-alone terminology "page": ok, look like usefull unify concepts and simplify links. Questions: this page will be a Glossary? (wikipedia is a glossary?) If the terms have articles, like web document, it is necessary? I think Template system terminology will be "Basic concepts and controlled terminology fast guide".
About "non-alphabetized sequence": on center-page may be more dificult a "didactic sequence"... it is another goal.
About delete from original/old page ("basic concepts" section): sugestion is to review... one or other term may be expanded as a section (like "sub-template section" or future "Good separation principles section").
Goals context: I think it is not only about Web template system but for all Template systems... the formal treatment is also for all.
-- Krauss 4 December 2006

[edit] Goals of "Article terminology" section

I think all terms need be defined (and/or use definitions from) by the formal treatment. Need be compatibilize. -- Krauss 4 December 2006

[edit] Terminology of the termininology

If "Pro forma X" is "Pro forma X" (depends on the context in which X is used)?

Yes, it is simply a latin term (for now used as a placeholder, welcome any alternative/established) as you probably saw from the Pro forma article. It is traditionally used in law, accounting, business etc. but I introduced it here simply to provide a way to avoid confusing with existing terms in the field (similar to the situation you encountered in trying to find alternative to "tag" "entity" etc) dr.ef.tymac 17:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a problem with the X term (need substitute synony) or with the context of use X (need review on artcle)?

The X terms (at least when combined with 'pro forma') is simply a way to distinguish the fact that a "formal X" may or may not mean the same thing as a "popularly identified X". (example 'template' defined in parr vs general 'template' defined in specific part of the article). dr.ef.tymac 17:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Established terminology" is well done?

"Article terminology" is a "waiting substitutes" terminology or a "Controlled vocabulary" of the articles?

I think more along the lines of "waiting substitutes" although it's possible it could be both. I do think it is useful to acknowledge the fact that sometimes an article may have to introduce terms for the purpose of disambiguation and clarity. A page like this just proves that the editors are not just "making up terms" and inventing new concepts out of thin air.
Also, to say "waiting substitute" does not necessarily mean that the introduced term is not a good one by itself. Sometimes a substitute never arrives. Any thoughts? dr.ef.tymac 18:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About supplied definitions

  • Data-flow definition for templates: A definition for establishing (lexically) what constitutes a template.
    1. lexically? lexicography is about "template language syntax", but dataflow modeling supply semantics.
    2. NOT supply directly a template definition, the focus is "modeling a template system". There are better start point for definition, on Web template system (formalism): "we can modeling the template system as a dataflow"... and on Talk page, "if a specific system, submited to the characterization analysis, can be modeled, it is a template system".
    3. Dataflow "show the templare behavior on the dataflow model", characterizing important template properties, not "establishing what constitutes a template". The template it self is "a priori", not defined there... the "web template definition" emerge from the web template article.
  • "Non-standard Template": An informally-defined template that does not technically meet the data-flow definition for templates.
    It is about standard?
Actually this one was about the fact that it is possible to have a "template" document that does not consist of a string (binary format doc file for example). This term may not really be important but I left it in as a placeholder. dr.ef.tymac 17:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The "Black Box approach" not fix a "standard" (fix a concept reference) and not say anything about format (binary or ASCII), then, the system that use a binary template is also a template system, if it have a compatible model and satisfy the "black box validation". (PS: we can adapt this to the FAQ) -- Krauss 4 December 2006
  • ...
Yes, I see your point about 'data flow definition' ... that is potentially confusing. I will change it. dr.ef.tymac 18:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, good observations... I adapted and add a motivatiom section to the formal treatment. Now the emphasis is not on Black box and the "validation of system model". -- Krauss 4 December 2006
One situation I think this discussion brings up, it is possible to define template in *many* different ways, (both internally, to make sure the article is consistent with itself, and externally, as found in authoritative outside sources used for verification and encyclopedic authority). I think the article should probably have a section noting that there are many definitions out there, and not just assume there is one "fixed" definition. Note that it is perfectly acceptable (to me anyway) if you want to employ a definition yourself that does not necessarily come from some authoritative cite, it's just that citations help people understand the background assumptions, in case they want to read the cite themselves and make additional contributions, clarifications etc. I think the same may apply to "template system". dr.ef.tymac 17:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let see if Black Box (a simple and wide accepted background) and "validation of system model" (presented as a simple check-list of properties) is ok. PS: the best discussion place is at formal treatment. -- Krauss 4 December 2006.

[edit] TERMS

[edit] Hook

Hook is a "(two languages) separation mark" used on templates.

NOTE: if we have another good term for substitute "hook", let use! If the another term show also problems, let stay with the first one, to reduce substitute-term work on articles.

The choice (not another term) was from the problem with the another terms: TAG have well-fixed meaning, "separator" or "delimitator" (simple generic terms) may make confusion/mistakes, "language separation mark" is too long.

It is not a "very exotic terminologic choice" because was used into another contexts, like LaTex, Cocoon, and UML. Perhaps the origins (ontology) is near to the described here on Wikipedia, showing that is a valid choice:

Winkelhaken (German for "angular hook", also simply called "hook" in English)...
serves as a sort of punctuation, (...) marking foreign words or names (...) as separation mark

(it is a mark/ponctuation/delimiter used to separate distinct/foreign/embedded languages)

  • (Brabrand 2002) Use the term special embedded scripting tag.
  • (Parr 2004) Use the term lexical-delimitor, "The expressions are embedded between literals and lexically-delimited (...)"

[edit] Script language is?

The template language is a concept about 2 languages? or a abstraction about only the "scripting language" into the template file?

Template language = ?

union("output language", "script language")
or
the "script language"

-- Krauss PS: what the correct name for "template logic+expressions+placeHolders language", script?

NOTE: what the name of the script elements, Statement (programming), Directive (programming), Expression (programming), or Instruction (computer science)? XQuery use only functional Expressions, SSI use Directives, CheetahTemplate use Statements... All are "algorithm elements" or "script elements" ... we need a generic term for it?

-- Krauss 4 December 2006

[edit] Sugestion for review procedures

There are terms that have concept very well-defined, like on formal defs., that need special treatment... There are anothers that have good "template system works using term" for use as source... and there are ugly terms, that need to change. -- Krauss 7 December 2006

Formally defined terms, see at formalism.

  • Template language: as a "mix of 2 languages" (see split model),
    • Output language = "template output language"
    • Script language = "Template programming language"
  • Template grammar starting with the "split model", and semantic (and restrictions) starting with the system model.
  • Content
    • Content resource
  • Strategies on system level:
    • Content-driven
    • Script-driven

Well "sourced/verifiable" terms for use on the "template system context"

  • Fragments (of script or output language)
    • "regular languages" applied to template script languages
    • context-free languages
  • Host language
  • Script language
  • data model
  • ...

Didactic terms used to explanations

  • Substitution process
  • Logic
  • Type of output document
    • Specific types
    • Standard formats
    • Non-standard types
  • Presentation
  • Good separation principles


BAD terms, that need urgent substituition.

Focus = terms on section titles, and definitions (like language feature names).

  • Hook?
  • "Declaration with Re-use"
  • ... ?
Just wondering, do you have any idea what this article will be about when it is finished? Is there a point where you can imagine saying to yourself, "Ok, the article is done, nothing more needs to put in, except perhaps new developments if and when they occur." dr.ef.tymac 00:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
OK! the reference to basic concepts is done! nothing more needs to put in, except more sources and perhaps new developments if and when they occur... another articles, depends on conclusive terminology to finish. -- Krauss 02:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

This can't even be called an "article"; a rewrite or some major cleanup is needed. →EdGl 23:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/e/b/Talk%7EWeb_template_system_%28terminology%29_ab07.html"