I agree with you. More details will come out over time but I wanted to keep yesterday's paper a single page.
> You mention in the citations that "Hierarchies are painless in our system through nested parsers, parser inheritance, parser mixins, and nested measurements." Nothing else in the article gives any hint as to what those things are or how your system implements them except nested measurements. It's unclear at all what a parser is in your system.
Below is a link to a web IDE we built. You can see parsers (on the left), and concepts (on the right). Nested parsers and parser inheritance are demonstrated. Mixins is not currently in that branch yet. Ignore the "cells" stuff at top (that turned out to be an unneeded division between lines parsers and word parsers).
https://jtree.treenotation.org/designer#url%20https%3A%2F%2F...
> Overall it seems like your ideas would make more sense if you used more widely adopted language to describe it. "Concepts" are records, "measurements" are fields.
Yes, concepts often map to records or rows. Measures to fields or columns. Measurements to the cells in a spreadsheet.
There are reasons for my terminology, that should become clearer over time.