Rename semantic?

[liamhuber]

After the ontology discussion today, I have the feeling that it may be wise to rename semantic, Semantic, and SemanticParent, without any change to functionality. Currently I lean towards lexical, Lexical, and LexicalParent, because the labels and paths all pertain to the scope of the semantic/lexical parent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_(computer_science)

It's a super easy change, but I want to get feedback because word choice can make things a lot easier or harder to understand. Feedback from all are welcome, but I'm going to assign the people I demand a comment from 😉

[Tara-Lakshmipathy]

In my opinion, it would be good to make a change just so that someone doesn't get an idea that this has something to do with the other ontology stuff from semantikon. I think there would be plenty of occasions when the use of lexical here would ALSO make semantic sense, but I think having multiple things with "semanti" maybe confusing.
Unless of course there is an intent to somehow incorporate functionalities from semantikon here as well. Then depending on how exactly they would interact, it may or may not make sense to change it. E.g., If I remember right, the idea of SemanticParent was the idea of introducing "projects" to workflows, right? So, if you plan to enforce that the SemanticParent is annotated wiith a superclass of the annotation of a workflow from some ontology, this might make sense.
Or am I remembering things completely wrong here?

[liamhuber]

@Tara-Lakshmipathy, super, thanks for the quick feedback.

SemanticParent leaves the door open for collecting workflows together into a unit that is not itself a graph/workflow, but doesn't require it. I didn't ever have in mind annotations to the effect of "this is a 'Workflow' type thing from such-and-such ontology". I mean, maybe we could some day, but that's not a plan or intent here.

Overall there's no specific plan for the current classes to interact with semantikon in some special way, so I agree with you that not having too-close-names is wise, and it sound like you're content with "lexical" as an alternative 🚀

[samwaseda]

I don't have a strong feeling. If you feel like changing it, I'm also fine with seeing a very different name. This being said, if you are concerned about people misunderstanding the class, Lexical doesn't sound to me like a huge improvement, although that might be only because I lack the required computer science knowledge. Anyway, I don't have a better suggestion, and for me the most important thing is the first docstring and the actual code, so feel free to change it.

[liamhuber]

This being said, if you are concerned about people misunderstanding the class, Lexical doesn't sound to me like a huge improvement, although that might be only because I lack the required computer science knowledge.

@XzzX, does this usage sound OK from your CS perspective? Other ideas also welcome.

[XzzX]

I do not have an opinion about the naming.