Make sure "specialized" definitions reference their "primitive" concepts

[samm82]

I noticed during #3702 that the definition of "position vector" doesn't reference "position" at all! Regardless of whether this definition is meant to convey something different (i.e., if the fix is renaming it vs. redefining it), an investigation of how we "build up" concepts should probably be done as part of the work from that meeting. Thoughts?

Drasil/code/drasil-data/lib/Data/Drasil/Concepts/Physics.hs

Lines 137 to 141 in 1ef469d

	position = dcc "position" (cn' "position")
	"an object's location relative to a reference point"
	positionVec = dccWDS "positionVec" (cn' "position vector")
	(S "a vector from the origin" `S.ofThe` phrase cartesian +:+ S "defined"
	`S.toThe` phrase point +:+ S "where the" +:+ phrase force +:+ S "is applied")

[smiths]

Thank you for creating this issue @samm82. Yes, we need to go through all of our examples and strengthen the concepts.

[Xinlu-Y]

It seems that position is being used in the key model definitions and equations. Could this be a result of inconsistent naming, or should positionVec replace position in this context? Additionally, how should I correctly build up positionVec to reference position?

Drasil/code/drasil-example/projectile/lib/Drasil/Projectile/GenDefs.hs

Lines 97 to 112 in 8624ac8

	posVecGD :: GenDefn
	posVecGD = gdNoRefs (equationalModel' posVecQD) (getUnit position)
	(Just posVecDeriv) "posVec" [{-Notes-}]
	posVecQD :: ModelQDef
	posVecQD = mkQuantDef' position (nounPhraseSent $ foldlSent_
	[atStart position, S "vector as a function" `S.of_` phrase time `S.for`
	getAcc twoD, S "motion under", phrase QP.constAccel])
	E.posVecExpr
	posVecDeriv :: Derivation
	posVecDeriv = mkDerivName (phrase positionVec) [posVecDerivSent, eS' posVecQD]
	posVecDerivSent :: Sentence
	posVecDerivSent =
	vecDeriv [(position, E.positionXY), (velocity, E.velocityXY), (acceleration, E.accelerationXY)] rectPosGD

[JacquesCarette]

You are correct that there seems to be a confusion in this example between position and positionVec. Your instincts are correct that position should not be used at all, and positionVec should be instead. Is that clear enough?

[JacquesCarette]

It does make sense to define the 'concept' of position; positionVec should, in theory, refer to that. But our current arrangement of Chunks may not really support that at the moment. It's part of the big project of re-arranging chunks more 'semantically'.