Naming all things derived from Quantity

[NoahCardoso]

@samm82 and @balacij as Dr Carette mentioned in #3726 there is a larger issue about naming all things derived from Quantity including the Chunks (as mentioned in #3244). How should I go about solving this?
I read through the chunk documentation and have suggested some better name ideas in a comment in #3244 such as renaming ConceptChunk to ExplainedIdea. Please let me know if you guys have any suggestions.

[balacij]

This falls under what we discussed yesterday in person. I think we should re-create the chunk nesting structure using either a text description or (preferred) a UML-style class diagram using draw.io or another graphic creation tool. The re-creation should capture what each "chunk nesting" adds to its nested chunk's corresponding idea, and there should probably be a legend to explain what you mean to capture between the chunks.

For example, there should be some sort of "nesting arrow" between a ConstrainedChunk and a QuantityDict that adds extra meaning to a particular quantity's idea -- a "constraint set" and a "reasonable value." The entire chunk hierarchy that relates to these chunks in #3726 should be found in the hierarchy built in the diagram, going all the way up until the top-most chunks related to them (e.g., there should also be an arrow between a QuantityDict and an IdeaDict node, but IdeaDict does not have an arrow to anything else because it does not nest around any other chunk [you can take its record not containing any other chunks as a hint that it is not intended to extend another chunk]).

I think that it would be good to build the diagram (you can send it over to me or @samm82 very early in work to make sure we're on the same page) first, and then we can write a textual interpretation of it (not re-iterating what's on the diagram, but analyzing and critiquing it). After that, we can discuss it as a group and try to figure out:

1. if things should be renamed, what the names should be, or
2. if things should perhaps be modified, how they should be modified and what the new names should be.

Recalling what @JacquesCarette mentioned in our first meeting, we believe that the existing "nesting doll" structure that we have is not quite the right way to go anymore. This approach should allow us to make steps towards addressing this nesting doll structure issue.

Note: I'm more than happy to help (I want to help, I'm just working on something else at the moment), and I'm pretty confident this won't be "fixed" quickly and will require us to discuss it in in-person and in one of our group meetings.

[balacij]

Ah, I forgot to add one important note that we discussed in person yesterday but that we didn't move to the issue tracker: I'm not sure if simply renaming the chunks is a good idea anymore. Since we're going to be putting in the effort to figuring out what new names should be, we're going to be learning about those chunks actually capture. From there, since we already know that we're going to move away from the nested chunk structure in the future, we might as well avoid future re-analysis and extra work by trying to address at least some of that work, now.

[JacquesCarette]

This is marked as 'completed' - but where is the work that corresponds to the completion?

[NoahCardoso]

My mistake I will re-open the issue