Paragraph/Essay:((Essay) (thesis)) (((paragraph) topic) details)Knowledge Domains/Concepts:((knowledge domain) (category)) (((concept) sub-concept) examples)

end result:
Paragraph/Essay:
((Essay) (thesis)) (((paragraph) topic) details)

Knowledge Domains/Concepts:
((knowledge domain) (category)) (((concept) sub-concept) examples)
—-
explanation: Talking with Claude-instant (AI) on comparing knowledge domains/concepts to paragraph/essays and using a nested parenthesis for representations of the structures but it was missing a connection to “details” in the knowledge domain.

——
Here is a comparison of the two nested parentheses representations:

Paragraph/Essay:
((Essay) (thesis)) (((paragraph) topic) details)

Knowledge Domains/Concepts:
((knowledge domain) (category)) ((concept) sub-concept)

Similarities:

Both use nested parentheses to show hierarchical relationships
Outermost layer represents the overarching structure
Successive inner layers provide increasing specificity
Analogous nesting of organizational vs conceptual structures
Differences:

Paragraph/essay focuses on composition elements
Knowledge domains focus on the conceptual framework
Essay = knowledge domain
Thesis = central theory
Paragraph = category
Topic = main concept
Additionally:

Paragraph/essay represent how ideas are arranged rhetorically

Knowledge domains represent how ideas logically interrelate conceptually

Paragraph/essay is based on an argumentative format

Knowledge domains reflects disciplinary content structure

While analogous in symbolic representation:

Paragraph/essay emphasize writing structure
Knowledge domains emphasize conceptual framing
So in summary, both notations use nesting to analogously represent hierarchical relationships, but between organizational vs conceptual frameworks of disciplinary knowledge presentation and construction.


then I suggested a change and it understood:
—–

Ah I see, you’re proposing to nest the “examples” term inside the existing “concept” and “sub-concept” layer for the knowledge domains representation. In that case, the two nested representations would be:

Paragraph/Essay:
((Essay) (thesis)) (((paragraph) topic) details)

Knowledge Domains/Concepts:
((knowledge domain) (category)) (((concept) sub-concept) examples)

This works well because:

It maintains the same level of nested depth for consistency
Examples would operate at a more specific sub-level than sub-concepts
Just as details provide more specificity than the topic
Examples likewise give more concrete instantiation of sub-concepts
This captures the relationship where:

Sub-concepts breakdown the conceptualization
But examples demonstrate the application of those sub-concepts
Analogous to how topics are broken down into supporting details.

So nesting “examples” inside the existing “concept” and “sub-concept” layer is a logical way to represent the progressively deeper levels of specificity in the knowledge domain conceptual representation. Nice adjustment!

[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


seven + = 10

Leave a Reply