{ "model": { "rank": 6576, "code": "thing-approval-communication", "model_id": "vr.tr.approval-communication", "name": "approval", "purpose": "a message expressing a favorable opinion", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Information and virtual systems", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "INF", "domain": "INF.MED", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/approval-communication/", "tier": 2, "score": 59, "payload": { "layer": "wordnet", "aliases": [ "epitaph", "festschrift", "commendation", "approbation", "sanction", "countenance", "endorsement", "indorsement", "warrant", "imprimatur", "visa", "nihil obstat", "recognition", "credit", "memorial", "commemoration", "remembrance", "ovation", "standing ovation", "salute", "salutation", "connivance", "secret approval", "tacit consent", "permission", "all clear", "consent", "dismissal", "green light", "leave", "pass", "laissez passer", "boarding card", "boarding pass", "hall pass", "ticket-of-leave", "passport", "safe-conduct", "safeguard", "encouragement" ], "aliasCount": 111, "merged": 59, "knownIn": 0, "facets": { "substance": "information", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert", "mobility": "not-applicable", "scale": "not-applicable", "affordances": [ "readable" ] }, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "noun.communication", "senseRank": 3, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "oewn:2024", "synset": "oewn-06699481-n", "ili": "i71625", "license": "CC BY 4.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T23:03:12Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 16.4, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a08868-5671-7441-9200-333a1fefc16a\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: approval\nSense to describe: a message expressing a favorable opinion\nDomain code: INF.MED\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 58.7, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a08868-5675-72c0-9568-7197efb82fe2\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: approval\nRegistry id: vr.tr.approval-communication\nPlane / domain: INF / INF.MED\nRegistry definition: a message expressing a favorable opinion\nNames " } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-APPROVAL-COMMUNICATION", "registryId": "vr.tr.approval-communication", "name": "approval", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "INF.MED" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/approval-communication/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.approval-communication", "name": "approval", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise a message expressing a favorable opinion, identify what is approved, assess its interpretation and current relevance, and decide how it may be used.", "definition": "Approval is a message that communicates a favorable evaluation of a person, action, proposal, object, or state of affairs, without necessarily granting permission or formal authorization.", "scope_statement": "This model owns approval as communication under vr.tr.approval-communication in INF / INF.MED: the expressed favorable opinion, its target, attribution, qualifications, and interpretation in context.", "in_scope": [ "Messages and identifiable message segments that express a favorable opinion", "The person, conduct, proposal, outcome, or other subject being evaluated favorably", "The attributed opinion holder, communicating party, and intended audience", "Explicit, indirect, qualified, and context-dependent expressions of approval", "Clarifications, corrections, and withdrawals linked to an approval message" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Unexpressed feelings or favorable mental attitudes", "Authorization, permission, consent, and formal decision processes", "The approved subject and its actual merits or performance", "General communication infrastructure and media formats", "Copyright and edition management of works containing approval", "Recommendations whose defining function is to advise a choice or action" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "An identifiable communication expresses a favorable evaluation; an uncommunicated attitude does not meet this entry's definition.", "The message evaluates a subject favorably rather than merely acknowledging receipt or describing it neutrally.", "Favorability concerns an identifiable subject or aspect; agreement that a statement is true does not by itself establish approval of what it describes.", "Favorable opinion does not by itself grant permission: 'I like this proposal' leaves authority to proceed unsettled.", "A positive-looking phrase or symbol requires contextual interpretation when quotation, irony, or local usage could change its meaning." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Approved subject", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Referenced subject, subject aspect, and version where applicable; unresolved when unclear", "why_it_matters": "Prevents approval of one aspect or version from being applied to another." }, { "name": "Expression form", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Verbal statement, written statement, gesture, reaction symbol, other signal, unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Identifies the communicative evidence requiring interpretation." }, { "name": "Expression directness", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Explicit, indirect, ambiguous", "why_it_matters": "Separates directly stated favorability from interpretations dependent on context." }, { "name": "Attributed opinion holder", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Person or group to whom the favorable opinion is attributed, with attribution evidence", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes the opinion holder from a messenger, quotation author, or forwarding account." }, { "name": "Favorability strength", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Mild, clear, emphatic, indeterminate; retain supporting wording", "why_it_matters": "Preserves differences between restrained acceptance and enthusiastic approval without inventing a numeric scale." }, { "name": "Qualification", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Unqualified in the message, conditional, partial, mixed with criticism, unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Prevents qualified praise from being represented as blanket approval." }, { "name": "Audience", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Intended recipients and observed recipients where known", "why_it_matters": "Helps interpret shorthand and assess whether reuse changes the message's context." }, { "name": "Subsequent stance evidence", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "No later evidence recorded, reaffirmed, clarified, withdrawn, contradicted, unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes evidence of a past favorable expression from evidence of a current opinion." }, { "name": "Permission relationship", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Separately evidenced authorization linked to this message, no authorization evidenced, unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Keeps favorable evaluation from becoming an unsupported instruction to proceed." } ], "affordances": [ "Identify the portion of a message that expresses approval and retain its surrounding context.", "Associate approval with the precise subject, aspect, or version evaluated.", "Summarise favorable opinion while preserving qualifications and attribution.", "Compare approval messages for changes in stance without assuming silence means continued approval.", "Request clarification when the target, sincerity, qualification, or practical consequence is ambiguous.", "Link separately evidenced permissions or decisions before using approval to justify an action." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "favorable-expression", "name": "Favorable expression", "description": "Recognise the communicative evidence that makes a message an expression of approval.", "rationale": "Positive wording alone can be acknowledgment, quotation, or irony rather than favorable evaluation.", "layers": [ { "id": "evaluative-content", "name": "Evaluative content", "description": "Locate the message content that conveys a favorable opinion.", "findings": [ { "id": "approval-bearing-segment", "name": "Approval-bearing segment", "description": "Record the words or signal interpreted as favorable evaluation, including whether that interpretation is explicit or inferred.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which words, gesture, or reaction express a favorable opinion?", "kind": "definition", "id": "approval-bearing-segment-q01" }, { "text": "What distinguishes this expression from neutral acknowledgment or agreement about a fact?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "approval-bearing-segment-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "contextual-reading", "name": "Contextual reading", "description": "Assess contextual evidence that supports or undermines the apparent approval.", "findings": [ { "id": "literal-or-context-dependent-approval", "name": "Literal or context-dependent approval", "description": "Retain relevant conversational context and competing interpretations when apparent praise may be indirect, ironic, or quoted.", "questions": [ { "text": "What surrounding exchange supports reading this message as approval?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "literal-or-context-dependent-approval-q01" }, { "text": "Could quotation, irony, or a local convention change the apparent favorable meaning?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "literal-or-context-dependent-approval-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "approved-target-and-limits", "name": "Approved target and limits", "description": "Identify exactly what is evaluated favorably and how far that evaluation extends.", "rationale": "Approval of a detail, intention, or earlier proposal must not be expanded into approval of an entire subject or later revision.", "layers": [ { "id": "target-resolution", "name": "Target resolution", "description": "Resolve the subject and aspect to which approval attaches.", "findings": [ { "id": "precise-object-of-approval", "name": "Precise object of approval", "description": "Connect the favorable evaluation to its referent, distinguishing a whole subject from a feature, action, intention, or outcome.", "questions": [ { "text": "What subject and specific aspect does the message evaluate favorably?", "kind": "definition", "id": "precise-object-of-approval-q01" }, { "text": "Which evidence resolves references such as 'this', 'that', or a reaction attached to a multi-part message?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "precise-object-of-approval-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "qualified-favorability", "name": "Qualified favorability", "description": "Preserve the extent, strength, and conditions of the favorable opinion.", "findings": [ { "id": "extent-and-reservations", "name": "Extent and reservations", "description": "Record reservations, conditions, and emphasis alongside the favorable expression.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which conditions, exceptions, or criticisms limit the approval?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "extent-and-reservations-q01" }, { "text": "How strongly is favorability expressed, and which wording supports that assessment?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "extent-and-reservations-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "opinion-attribution", "name": "Opinion attribution", "description": "Establish whose favorable opinion is expressed and how the expression reached its audience.", "rationale": "A relayed, quoted, or collective approval can be misattributed to the person transmitting it.", "layers": [ { "id": "holder-and-messenger", "name": "Holder and messenger", "description": "Separate the attributed opinion holder from the communicator and any represented group.", "findings": [ { "id": "attributed-favorable-stance", "name": "Attributed favorable stance", "description": "Record the claimed holder of the opinion and the evidence for personal or representative attribution.", "questions": [ { "text": "Whose favorable opinion does the message claim to express?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "attributed-favorable-stance-q01" }, { "text": "If the speaker claims 'we approve', what supports attribution to the named group?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "attributed-favorable-stance-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "original-and-relayed-expression", "name": "Original and relayed expression", "description": "Distinguish direct evidence of approval from reports, excerpts, and forwards.", "findings": [ { "id": "approval-transmission-evidence", "name": "Approval transmission evidence", "description": "Connect the observed expression to available originals and preserve omissions that could alter its interpretation.", "questions": [ { "text": "Is the available evidence an original expression, a quotation, or another person's report of approval?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "approval-transmission-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "Has relaying or excerpting removed qualifications or changed who appears to approve?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "approval-transmission-evidence-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "stance-over-time", "name": "Stance over time", "description": "Track when approval was expressed, what it concerned then, and subsequent evidence affecting its use.", "rationale": "A historical expression remains evidence of what was communicated even when a later message changes the stance.", "layers": [ { "id": "expression-time-and-target-version", "name": "Expression time and target version", "description": "Anchor approval to its communication time and the evaluated state of its subject.", "findings": [ { "id": "historical-scope-of-approval", "name": "Historical scope of approval", "description": "Record the timing and target version needed to avoid carrying approval across unsupported changes.", "questions": [ { "text": "When was approval expressed, and which version or state of the subject was available then?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "historical-scope-of-approval-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence, if any, supports applying this approval to the subject's current state?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "historical-scope-of-approval-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "clarification-and-withdrawal", "name": "Clarification and withdrawal", "description": "Relate later communications to the earlier favorable expression.", "findings": [ { "id": "subsequent-stance-change", "name": "Subsequent stance change", "description": "Link reaffirmations, corrections, withdrawals, and contradictions while retaining the original expression.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which later messages clarify, reaffirm, withdraw, or contradict this approval?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "subsequent-stance-change-q01" }, { "text": "Should an agent present this as historical approval, a reaffirmed stance, or a stance whose current status is unresolved?", "kind": "action", "id": "subsequent-stance-change-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "practical-use-of-approval", "name": "Practical use of approval", "description": "Determine what an agent can responsibly infer or do with the favorable expression.", "rationale": "Approval can inform a summary or response, but practical authority and broader endorsement require additional evidence.", "layers": [ { "id": "evaluation-and-permission", "name": "Evaluation and permission", "description": "Separate favorable opinion from any additional permission or formal decision conveyed by the same message.", "findings": [ { "id": "independent-authority-evidence", "name": "Independent authority evidence", "description": "Identify separately supported authorization when a message combines favorable evaluation with an instruction or decision.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the message only express favorability, or also explicitly communicate permission or a decision?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "independent-authority-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "What separate authority or process evidence must be linked before acting on that permission or decision?", "kind": "action", "id": "independent-authority-evidence-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "faithful-reuse", "name": "Faithful reuse", "description": "Preserve the meaning of approval when summarising, quoting, or using it as evidence.", "findings": [ { "id": "reuse-with-original-limits", "name": "Reuse with original limits", "description": "Keep the approved aspect, attribution, reservations, and relevant timing visible in downstream representations.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which details must accompany a summary so that limited approval does not become blanket endorsement?", "kind": "action", "id": "reuse-with-original-limits-q01" }, { "text": "Would the proposed use imply permission, public endorsement, or current support beyond what the message establishes?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "reuse-with-original-limits-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-external-alignment", "name": "Evidence and external alignment", "description": "What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.", "rationale": "A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.", "layers": [ { "id": "reported-evidence", "name": "Reported evidence", "description": "Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes", "name": "Check these first", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "The intended sense is an approving message, rather than an internal attitude or an institutional decision.", "The listed kinds overlap and are ordinary communicative categories, not a standardized taxonomy.", "No universal identifier scheme, measurement scale, or dedicated standard is asserted for this sense." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of approval this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-kinds", "name": "Kinds and varieties", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Praise", "Commendation", "Endorsement", "Appreciation" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of approval this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-real-world-use", "name": "Real-world use", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Giving positive feedback about performance or conduct", "Expressing support for a proposal or creative work", "Recognizing an achievement or contribution", "Communicating favorable evaluations in reviews and recommendations", "Expressing favorable reactions through applause or digital reactions" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of approval this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards", "name": "Failure modes and hazards", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "A favorable opinion may be mistaken for permission or formal authorization.", "Irony, sarcasm, or politeness can make apparently approving messages misleading.", "Approval of one feature may be interpreted as endorsement of the entire subject.", "Fabricated or misattributed endorsements can misrepresent the speaker's opinion.", "A brief reaction may leave the object and strength of approval unclear." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of approval this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-regional-variation", "name": "Regional variation", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Conventions for praise, directness, and public recognition vary across languages and communities.", "Gestures and digital reaction symbols may carry different meanings across cultural contexts." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of approval this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-neighbours", "name": "Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "name": "Favorable opinion", "difference": "A favorable opinion can remain unexpressed; approval in this sense is its communication." }, { "name": "Authorization", "difference": "Authorization grants permission or authority; an approving message need only express a favorable evaluation." }, { "name": "Agreement", "difference": "Agreement expresses concurrence with a claim or position; approval evaluates something favorably." }, { "name": "Acknowledgment", "difference": "Acknowledgment signals receipt, awareness, or recognition without necessarily expressing a favorable opinion." }, { "name": "Recommendation", "difference": "A recommendation advises a choice or course of action; approval need not advise action." }, { "name": "Disapproval", "difference": "Disapproval communicates an unfavorable evaluation." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of approval this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which registry neighbours own praise, endorsement, agreement, consent, and authorization, and where should mixed messages link to them?", "Under what evidenced conventions should gestures and reaction symbols count as approval rather than acknowledgment?", "What criteria should distinguish a favorable report of someone else's opinion from a new approval expressed by the reporting speaker?", "Can favorability strength be assessed consistently across languages and settings, or should models retain only wording and local interpretations?", "What evidence is sufficient to attribute a collective approval to a group rather than only to its spokesperson?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 16, "questions": 26 } }, "draft": { "generator": "vr.draft.v3", "status": "draft-generated", "researched": false, "archetype": "work, medium or creative form", "method": "Written from the archetype playbook - what this kind of thing needs beyond identity and provenance - and from the structure that recurred across 6,333 models already researched by two engines. Applied to this entry by rule. No source was read for this thing and no claim here is researched.", "facetsInferred": false, "nextPass": "A researcher replaces this draft with a sourced specification. Treat every sentence below as a proposal to argue with.", "purpose": "Give an agent a durable, checkable way to recognise a approval, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "a message expressing a favorable opinion", "characteristics": { "substance": "information", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "read and interpreted" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Names folded into this entry, which a task may need to split apart again: epitaph, festschrift, commendation, approbation, sanction, countenance, endorsement, indorsement, warrant, imprimatur, visa, nihil obstat.", "59 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it." ], "openQuestionsForResearch": [ "Which of the bundles below does a real task actually need, and which are ceremony?", "What does this thing have that the facets do not capture at all?", "Which neighbouring kind is most often confused with a approval, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "content that has to be carried by something else", "physicalCharacter": [ "Does nothing on its own; everything it does, something else did to it." ], "whatCanBeDoneWithIt": [ "read it and act on what it says" ], "howItIsRecognised": [ "What is seen is a copy or a performance, not the work. Recognising the work means recognising the content through whatever is carrying it." ], "relatedModels": [ { "relation": "covers", "note": "Finer kinds folded into this entry because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it. Each is a model waiting to be split out when one does.", "targets": [ "epitaph", "festschrift", "commendation", "approbation", "sanction", "countenance", "endorsement", "indorsement", "warrant", "imprimatur", "visa", "nihil obstat" ] } ], "standing": "59 finer distinctions are held inside this entry as names rather than as separate models.", "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "identity-and-classification", "name": "Identity, naming and classification", "description": "How an agent tells one approval from another, and a approval from things that resemble it.", "rationale": "Recognition comes before every other claim. Without stable identity nothing else in the model can be trusted to be about the same thing twice.", "layers": [ { "id": "naming-and-identifiers", "name": "Names and identifiers", "description": "The names this thing goes by and the identifiers that survive translation and time.", "findings": [ { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases", "name": "Preferred name, aliases and local names", "description": "Which name to use, which names mean the same thing, and which merely sound similar.", "questions": [ { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the name of a approval, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the name of a approval, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the name of a approval is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers", "name": "Stable identifiers and external keys", "description": "Identifiers that keep pointing at this kind of thing across systems and languages.", "questions": [ { "id": "stable-identifiers-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes an identifier for a approval, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about an identifier for a approval, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once an identifier for a approval is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "classification-and-granularity", "name": "Classification and granularity", "description": "Where a approval sits among kinds, and how finely a task needs to cut it.", "findings": [ { "id": "kind-and-parents", "name": "Kind, parents and neighbouring kinds", "description": "The classes this thing belongs to and the ones it is next to.", "questions": [ { "id": "kind-and-parents-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the kind of a approval, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "kind-and-parents-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the kind of a approval, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "kind-and-parents-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the kind of a approval is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features", "name": "Distinguishing features", "description": "What separates a approval from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a approval, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about what distinguishes a approval, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once what distinguishes a approval is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "state-and-lifecycle", "name": "State and lifecycle", "description": "The states a approval passes through and the events that move it between them.", "rationale": "Most decisions about a thing depend on what state it is in now, which is a claim with a time on it, not a property.", "layers": [ { "id": "lifecycle-stages", "name": "Lifecycle stages", "description": "From coming into existence to ceasing to be one of these.", "findings": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions", "name": "Stages and transitions", "description": "The stages worth naming and what moves a approval between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a approval, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the lifecycle of a approval, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the lifecycle of a approval is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "observations-and-status", "name": "Observations and current status", "description": "What is observed about a approval, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a approval is recorded so that it can be superseded rather than overwritten.", "questions": [ { "id": "observation-record-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes an observation of a approval, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "observation-record-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about an observation of a approval, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "observation-record-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once an observation of a approval is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "content-and-access", "name": "Content, encoding and access", "description": "What a approval says, how it is encoded and who may read it.", "rationale": "An informational thing carries content that can be copied, versioned and withheld, none of which its physical carrier explains.", "layers": [ { "id": "content-and-encoding", "name": "Content and encoding", "description": "The content itself, its format and its language.", "findings": [ { "id": "content-and-format", "name": "Content, format and language", "description": "What a approval contains and in what form it is held.", "questions": [ { "id": "content-and-format-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the content of a approval, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "content-and-format-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the content of a approval, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "content-and-format-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the content of a approval is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "access-and-rights", "name": "Access, rights and retention", "description": "Who may read, copy or change it, and for how long it is kept.", "findings": [ { "id": "access-rules", "name": "Access rules and retention", "description": "The permissions attached to a approval and the period it survives.", "questions": [ { "id": "access-rules-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes access to a approval, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "access-rules-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about access to a approval, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "access-rules-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once access to a approval is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "work-and-manifestation", "name": "Work, version and copy", "description": "Which level of approval a statement is about.", "rationale": "The work, the edition, the file and the copy in hand are four things; rights and content attach to different ones.", "layers": [ { "id": "levels", "name": "Levels of the thing", "description": "Work, expression, manifestation and item, in plain terms.", "findings": [ { "id": "level-rules", "name": "What belongs at each level", "description": "Which facts hold for the work and which only for one copy.", "questions": [ { "id": "level-rules-q01", "text": "For approval, which facts belong to the work itself, which to a version, and which to a single copy?", "kind": "boundary" }, { "id": "level-rules-q02", "text": "What identifier exists at each level, and which one is being cited?", "kind": "definition" } ] } ] }, { "id": "versions", "name": "Versions, editions and variants", "description": "How versions differ and which is canonical to whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "version-record", "name": "Versions and canonicity", "description": "Differences that matter and who calls one authoritative.", "questions": [ { "id": "version-record-q01", "text": "Which versions or editions of approval exist, and how do they differ substantively?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "version-record-q02", "text": "Who treats which version as authoritative, and for what purpose?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "authorship-and-rights", "name": "Authorship, rights and permitted use", "description": "Who made approval and what may be done with it.", "rationale": "Rights are jurisdictional, time-limited and attached to a level, and an agent that ignores that will copy what it may not.", "layers": [ { "id": "authorship", "name": "Authorship and contribution", "description": "Who contributed what, and in what capacity.", "findings": [ { "id": "contribution-record", "name": "Contributors and roles", "description": "The people and bodies behind it, with their roles.", "questions": [ { "id": "contribution-record-q01", "text": "Who authored or contributed to approval, in what roles, and how is that attested?", "kind": "provenance" }, { "id": "contribution-record-q02", "text": "Where authorship is disputed or anonymous, what is recorded instead?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "rights", "name": "Rights and permissions", "description": "Which rights subsist, where, until when, and what they permit.", "findings": [ { "id": "rights-record", "name": "Rights, term and permitted acts", "description": "The regime in force and what it allows.", "questions": [ { "id": "rights-record-q01", "text": "What rights subsist in approval, in which jurisdictions, and until when?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "rights-record-q02", "text": "Which acts are permitted without further permission, and which must an agent refuse?", "kind": "action" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "provenance-and-evidence", "name": "Provenance, evidence and time", "description": "Where every claim about a approval came from and when it held.", "rationale": "A claim without a source and a time cannot be superseded, only overwritten, and an agent that overwrites loses the ability to explain itself.", "layers": [ { "id": "source-and-authority", "name": "Source and authority", "description": "Who said it, on what evidence, and how strongly.", "findings": [ { "id": "claim-provenance", "name": "Claim provenance and confidence", "description": "The authority behind each claim about a approval and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a approval, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "claim-provenance-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about a claim about a approval, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "claim-provenance-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once a claim about a approval is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "time-and-versions", "name": "Time, versions and supersession", "description": "When a claim was true, when it was learnt, and what replaced it.", "findings": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession", "name": "Validity period and supersession", "description": "How an old claim about a approval is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a approval, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the validity of a claim about a approval, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the validity of a claim about a approval is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 12, "findings": 14, "questions": 38 } } } }