How should we account for concepts having multiple forms at different levels of sophistication and exploit it in design?

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• Two concepts should not have the same purpose; additional concepts for the same purpose create needless complexity.claim0.769
  No redundancy criterion.
• There appears to be a systematic relationship between the frequency of concepts and the dictionary size needed to resolve features for them.claim0.764
  Feature presence depends on concept frequency in training data, with a threshold scaling inversely with alive features.
• A concept should not attempt to serve two distinct purposes; this leads to conflicts and confusion.claim0.763
  No overloading criterion.
• Concepts are not just subjective mental constructs, but are objective features of a system's design: increments of functionality that were consciously introduced by a designer to serve particular purposes.concept0.759
  Central definition from the abstract.
• Variant concepts should have similar behaviors; otherwise, users are surprised and modularity suffers.claim0.755
  Uniformity criterion.
• A building has too many variables; we cannot get each aspect right unless it is possible to work out one aspect at a time, step by step.claim0.750
  Direct application of the coin argument to building design and construction.
• Concept idioms are reusable across contexts and can codify design expertise.claim0.749
  Value of building a catalog of idioms.
• Software design concepts require grounding in phenomenological rather than purely formal frameworks.claim0.749