-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 42
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
Comments
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. Don't use ogit/NTO/ThingA/Set. Use ogit/NTO/SemanticNameOfAnGroup. |
OK, that's cool, your response is super helpful! I will probably need to change my pull request (but that's a good thing). |
Hi Chris, |
@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 |
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 anogit/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 likeogit/NTO/SetOfThingA
orogit/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.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: