What is the difference in meaning between the notation $P(z;d,w)$ and $P(z|d,w)$ which are commonly used in many books and papers?
I believe the origin of this is the likelihood paradigm (though I have not checked the actual historical correctness of the below, it is a reasonable way of understanding how it came to be).
Let's say in a regression setting, you would have a distribution:
$$ p(Y | x, \beta) $$
Which means: the distribution of $Y$ if you know (conditional on) the $x$ and $\beta$ values.
If you want to estimate the betas, you want to maximize the likelihood:
$$ L(\beta; y,x) = p(Y | x, \beta) $$
Essentially, you are now looking at the expression $p(Y | x, \beta)$ as a function of the beta's, but apart from that, there is no difference (for mathematical correct expressions that you can properly derive, this is a necessity --- although in practice no one bothers).
Then, in bayesian settings, the difference between parameters and other variables soon fades, so one started to you use both notations intermixedly.
So, in essence: there is no actual difference: they both indicate the conditional distribution of the thing on the left, conditional on the thing(s) on the right.
$f(x;\theta)$ is the density of the random variable $X$ at the point $x$, with $\theta$ being the parameter of the distribution. $f(x,\theta)$ is the joint density of $X$ and $\Theta$ at the point $(x,\theta)$ and only makes sense if $\Theta$ is a random variable. $f(x|\theta)$ is the conditional distribution of $X$ given $\Theta$, and again, only makes sense if $\Theta$ is a random variable. This will become much clearer when you get further into the book and look at Bayesian analysis.
$f(x;\theta)$ is the same as $f(x|\theta)$, simply meaning that $\theta$ is a fixed parameter and the function $f$ is a function of $x$. $f(x,\Theta)$, OTOH, is an element of a family (or set) of functions, where the elements are indexed by $\Theta$. A subtle distinction, perhaps, but an important one, esp. when it comes time to estimate an unknown parameter $\theta$ on the basis of known data $x$; at that time, $\theta$ varies and $x$ is fixed, resulting in the "likelihood function". Usage of $\mid$ is more common among statisticians, while $;$ among mathematicians.
Although it hasn't always been this way, these days $P(z; d, w)$ is generally used when $d,w$ are not random variables (which isn't to say that they're known, necessarily). $P(z | d, w)$ indicates conditioning on values of $d,w$. Conditioning is an operation on random variables and as such using this notation when $d, w$ aren't random variables is confusing (and tragically common).
As @Nick Sabbe points out $p(y|X, \Theta)$ is a common notation for the sampling distribution of observed data $y$. Some frequentists will use this notation but insist that $\Theta$ isn't a random variable, which is an abuse IMO. But they have no monopoly there; I've seen Bayesians do it too, tacking fixed hyperparameters on at the end of the conditionals.