Skip to content
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

Semantics and Generalisation #174

Closed
thechriswalker opened this issue May 6, 2015 · 4 comments
Closed

Semantics and Generalisation #174

thechriswalker opened this issue May 6, 2015 · 4 comments

Comments

@thechriswalker
Copy link
Contributor

I have been watching the progress of #169, as in the TabTab pull request #170 I used the ogit/Set entity. Now it has been removed.

I am struggling to understand the usage of the word semantic is relation to the graph entities/verbs/attributes. I thought it meant to be as specific as needed and as general as possible. Therefore an arbitrary collection of entities could be grouped with an ogit/Set node quite happily. It seems I was wrong, which may mean a lot of the pull request will need reworking.

Does the removal of ogit/Set mean that we should instead be requesting creation of entities like ogit/NTO/SetOfThingA or ogit/NTO/ThingA/Set? What is the preferred definition for group entities?

Thanks for the clarification, I am requesting a lot of changes, and want to understand what will work best in OGIT.

@plarem
Copy link
Contributor

plarem commented May 6, 2015

We have remove ogit/Set because it has no semantical meaning. ogit/Set could contain any types and combination of entities. But these is not the sense of the ontology.
e.g. a group of MARSNodes is a MARSModel (not a ogit/Set connected to MARSNodes)
or a group of Paragraphs is a Statute (not in OGIT yet :-) ) and so on.

Don't use ogit/NTO/ThingA/Set. Use ogit/NTO/SemanticNameOfAnGroup.
I hope it helps you.
And sorry for the confusion of ogit/Set.

@thechriswalker
Copy link
Contributor Author

OK, that's cool, your response is super helpful! I will probably need to change my pull request (but that's a good thing).

@conofre
Copy link
Contributor

conofre commented May 6, 2015

Hi Chris,
I am reviewing the pull request and was also commenting the same thing because of entity Collection, I will provide my feedback shortly at the pull request with some suggested changes/questions

@thechriswalker
Copy link
Contributor Author

@conofre it might be easier for you to review the "files changed" in a pull request, rather than the commits one by one. Later commits change changes in earlier commits. Github allows you to view the combined diff in one go. I only say this, because ogit/Collection is not in the final code of the pull request, but you mention it here. A later commit removes all references to ogit/Collection changing it to ogit/Set. This will be changed soon by another commit where I use more semantically correct entities for grouping objects.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants