{ "model": { "rank": 4878, "code": "thing-q146078", "model_id": "vr.tr.accusative-case", "name": "accusative case", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to recognise, analyse and annotate accusative case in a specified language and construction while preserving uncertainty about its identification, realisation and grammatical function.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Cross-cutting context", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "XCT", "domain": "XCT.QLT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q146078/", "tier": 2, "score": 71, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [ "Zustandsakkusativ" ], "aliasCount": 1, "merged": 1, "knownIn": 71, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q146078", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q146078", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T21:11:36Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 25.9, "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: 01a08802-1bd4-7f93-a2e1-509c00a5c9ad\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: accusative case\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: XCT.QLT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 005: 1001", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 61.8, "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: 01a08802-1be2-7c90-8fbe-a1b4f77eecfc\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: accusative case\nRegistry id: vr.tr.accusative-case\nPlane / domain: XCT / XCT.QLT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q146078", "registryId": "vr.tr.accusative-case", "name": "accusative case", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "XCT.QLT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q146078/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.accusative-case", "name": "accusative case", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to recognise, analyse and annotate accusative case in a specified language and construction while preserving uncertainty about its identification, realisation and grammatical function.", "definition": "The accusative case is a grammatical case characteristically marking the direct object of a transitive verb in nominative-accusative alignment, with its distribution and additional functions determined by the grammar of each language.", "scope_statement": "This model owns accusative case as a grammatical category and its language-specific instances, including the evidence linking forms, distributions and analyses to that category; it distinguishes accusative case from direct-object status and nominative-accusative alignment.", "in_scope": [ "Language-specific definitions and diagnostics for identifying accusative case", "Accusative assignment to nominal expressions in specified constructions", "Overt, zero and syncretic realisations of accusative case", "Accusative relationships to grammatical relations, semantic roles and alignment", "Competing analyses and evidence-sensitive annotation decisions" ], "out_of_scope": [ "The full inventory and organisation of grammatical cases", "Direct objects and other grammatical relations independently of case", "Nominative-accusative alignment as a complete grammatical system", "Complete nominal declension paradigms beyond contrasts needed to identify accusative", "Accusative-and-infinitive constructions as complete construction models", "General theories of syntax, thematic roles or language acquisition" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Require language-specific case diagnostics: identifying an expression as a direct object does not by itself establish accusative case.", "Distinguish a case category from its exponent: an ending or pronoun form counts as accusative evidence only within the relevant paradigm and distribution.", "Separate accusative from absolutive by examining how candidate forms pattern with intransitive subjects, transitive subjects and transitive objects.", "Separate an accusative annotation on a constituent from a claim that the language has nominative-accusative alignment throughout its grammar.", "Distinguish grammatical accusative from semantic patienthood by checking case behaviour independently of the participant's meaning." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Language and variety", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Named language, dialect, historical stage and register", "why_it_matters": "Case diagnostics and distributions must be evaluated within a specified linguistic system." }, { "name": "Analytical interpretation", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Descriptive case category; morphological case; abstract syntactic Case; comparative category; disputed", "why_it_matters": "These interpretations can support different claims about the same expression." }, { "name": "Accusative bearer", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Linked token, nominal constituent or paradigm position, with the analysis's assignment domain", "why_it_matters": "The constituent assigned case and the elements displaying it may differ." }, { "name": "Realisation", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Affixal; stem alternation; suppletive; clitic or particle under the adopted analysis; zero; distributed; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Recognition cannot depend on finding a dedicated accusative suffix." }, { "name": "Formal distinctness", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Distinct accusative form; syncretic with named cases; no overt contrast; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "A shared surface form can leave case identification dependent on other evidence." }, { "name": "Licensing environment", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Linked predicate, adposition or construction, including relevant conditions", "why_it_matters": "Accusative attribution requires an account of where it is licensed." }, { "name": "Grammatical and semantic function", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Separately identified grammatical relation and semantic role in a cited example", "why_it_matters": "Keeping the two independent prevents objecthood and patienthood from becoming circular case tests." }, { "name": "Analysis status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Proposed; supported within a named analysis; disputed; underdetermined; rejected", "why_it_matters": "An agent needs to distinguish an established annotation from a hypothesis requiring review." } ], "affordances": [ "Identify candidate accusative expressions using language-specific paradigms and constructional diagnostics.", "Annotate case separately from surface form, grammatical relation and semantic role.", "Compare competing accusative analyses against cited examples and explicit theoretical assumptions.", "Detect unsupported inferences from word order, objecthood or an ambiguous ending.", "Select or generate an accusative form when the governing construction and paradigm are established.", "Defer an annotation and request discriminating evidence when case remains underdetermined." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "category-and-analysis", "name": "Category and analysis", "description": "Establish what accusative means in the linguistic description being used.", "rationale": "Recognition depends on whether accusative denotes an observable case distinction, a theoretical assignment or a cross-language comparison.", "layers": [ { "id": "definition-and-tradition", "name": "Definition and tradition", "description": "Locate the category within a language description and analytical tradition.", "findings": [ { "id": "accusative-definition", "name": "Accusative definition", "description": "Record the adopted definition, its author or descriptive tradition, and its diagnostics without treating it as universally settled.", "questions": [ { "text": "How does the cited grammar or analysis define accusative in this language and variety?", "kind": "definition", "id": "accusative-definition-q01" }, { "text": "Who adopts this definition, and which competing analysis changes what counts as accusative?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "accusative-definition-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "levels-of-case-analysis", "name": "Levels of case analysis", "description": "Separate morphological evidence, syntactic assignment and comparative terminology.", "findings": [ { "id": "case-analysis-level", "name": "Case analysis level", "description": "Specify the level at which accusative is asserted and the evidence appropriate to that assertion.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does accusative here label a morphological paradigm value, abstract syntactic Case or a comparative category?", "kind": "definition", "id": "case-analysis-level-q01" }, { "text": "If no overt case contrast exists, what independently supports the accusative analysis?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "case-analysis-level-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "forms-and-exponents", "name": "Forms and exponents", "description": "Describe how accusative is realised and how much a surface form can establish.", "rationale": "Accusative identification must accommodate distinct forms, shared forms and case expression across a constituent.", "layers": [ { "id": "paradigmatic-contrasts", "name": "Paradigmatic contrasts", "description": "Compare candidate accusative forms with relevant alternatives in the same paradigm.", "findings": [ { "id": "accusative-form-evidence", "name": "Accusative form evidence", "description": "Record contrasts while controlling for lexical item, number, gender or other relevant inflectional conditions.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which attested paradigm contrasts distinguish accusative from nominative and other candidate cases?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "accusative-form-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "Where the form is syncretic or unmarked, which contextual diagnostics can resolve its case?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "accusative-form-evidence-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "constituent-realisation", "name": "Constituent realisation", "description": "Locate accusative expression within the nominal constituent and distinguish case assignment from concord.", "findings": [ { "id": "bearer-and-marking-sites", "name": "Bearer and marking sites", "description": "Identify the assigned constituent and the nouns, pronouns, modifiers or other elements that express its case.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which constituent receives accusative, and which of its elements overtly express that value?", "kind": "definition", "id": "bearer-and-marking-sites-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence distinguishes case concord from independent case assignment or a separate adpositional construction?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "bearer-and-marking-sites-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "licensing-and-alternations", "name": "Licensing and alternations", "description": "Capture the constructions that license accusative and the conditions under which another case appears.", "rationale": "An agent must know when accusative is permitted, required or excluded before analysing or generating an expression.", "layers": [ { "id": "governors-and-constructions", "name": "Governors and constructions", "description": "Associate accusative with attested predicates, adpositions and constructional environments.", "findings": [ { "id": "accusative-licensing", "name": "Accusative licensing", "description": "Record the licensing account and distinguish its observed distribution from theoretical explanations.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which predicates, adpositions or constructions license accusative in the attested examples?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "accusative-licensing-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence supports treating this accusative as structurally assigned, lexically governed or construction-specific?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "accusative-licensing-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "conditioned-case-choice", "name": "Conditioned case choice", "description": "Examine accusative alternatives under changes in nominal properties or clause structure.", "findings": [ { "id": "accusative-alternation-conditions", "name": "Accusative alternation conditions", "description": "Record demonstrated effects of factors such as animacy, definiteness, negation, aspect or voice without presuming their relevance in every language.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which controlled examples establish when accusative alternates with another case or with absence of overt marking?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "accusative-alternation-conditions-q01" }, { "text": "Does the alternation change case assignment, only its overt expression, the construction's meaning or more than one of these?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "accusative-alternation-conditions-q02" }, { "text": "Which established conditions must an agent check before choosing an accusative form?", "kind": "action", "id": "accusative-alternation-conditions-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "functions-and-alignment", "name": "Functions and alignment", "description": "Relate accusative to grammatical functions while maintaining the distinctions needed for cross-language comparison.", "rationale": "Direct-object associations are useful evidence but cannot substitute for identifying the case category.", "layers": [ { "id": "argument-patterning", "name": "Argument patterning", "description": "Compare case behaviour across intransitive subjects, transitive subjects and transitive objects.", "findings": [ { "id": "alignment-diagnostics", "name": "Alignment diagnostics", "description": "Record the relevant argument contrasts and limit alignment conclusions to the domains actually examined.", "questions": [ { "text": "How do the candidate accusative forms contrast with forms used for intransitive and transitive subjects?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "alignment-diagnostics-q01" }, { "text": "Do pronouns, nouns or particular constructions show different patterns that restrict the alignment claim?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "alignment-diagnostics-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "function-and-role-range", "name": "Function and role range", "description": "Investigate the grammatical relations and meanings associated with accusative in the target language.", "findings": [ { "id": "accusative-beyond-objecthood", "name": "Accusative beyond objecthood", "description": "Test both accusative uses outside direct objects and direct objects outside accusative, keeping semantic roles independently recorded.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which attested accusative expressions function as something other than direct objects, if any?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "accusative-beyond-objecthood-q01" }, { "text": "Which direct objects receive another case, and which semantic roles occur among independently identified accusative expressions?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "accusative-beyond-objecthood-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-annotation", "name": "Evidence and annotation", "description": "Turn accusative analyses into traceable decisions that an agent can review and revise.", "rationale": "A usable model must distinguish evidence for accusative from inherited labels and specify how unresolved cases affect action.", "layers": [ { "id": "attestation-and-disagreement", "name": "Attestation and disagreement", "description": "Connect analyses to examples, source descriptions and explicit counterevidence.", "findings": [ { "id": "traceable-accusative-claim", "name": "Traceable accusative claim", "description": "Preserve each example's linguistic context, source and analysis, including disagreements between descriptions.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which readable source or documented elicitation supports the accusative label for this expression?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "traceable-accusative-claim-q01" }, { "text": "Which counterexample or alternative analysis would weaken that identification?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "traceable-accusative-claim-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "annotation-and-revision", "name": "Annotation and revision", "description": "Define justified annotation, abstention and revision for accusative candidates.", "findings": [ { "id": "accusative-decision-policy", "name": "Accusative decision policy", "description": "Specify sufficient diagnostics, preserve unresolved alternatives and constrain form generation to supported environments.", "questions": [ { "text": "What combination of paradigm and constructional evidence is sufficient to annotate accusative under the selected analysis?", "kind": "action", "id": "accusative-decision-policy-q01" }, { "text": "When evidence is insufficient, which alternatives should remain open and what additional example would discriminate between them?", "kind": "action", "id": "accusative-decision-policy-q02" }, { "text": "When a source analysis changes, which annotations and generated forms require review?", "kind": "action", "id": "accusative-decision-policy-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "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": [ "This describes the linguistic sense; the recorded domain code alone does not establish a narrower interpretation.", "The listed kinds are traditional uses or constructions, not a universal set of separate accusative case values.", "Morphological case, syntactic case and theory-specific abstract Case should be distinguished; their relationship and analyses vary across linguistic frameworks." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of accusative case 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": [ "Direct-object accusative", "Accusative of duration", "Accusative of spatial extent", "Accusative of respect", "Accusative subject in accusative-and-infinitive constructions" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of accusative case this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-identifiers", "name": "Identifiers and schemes", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "scheme": "Leipzig Glossing Rules", "value_or_pattern": "ACC", "note": "Conventional abbreviation for accusative in interlinear grammatical glosses." }, { "scheme": "Universal Dependencies morphological features", "value_or_pattern": "Case=Acc", "note": "Annotation for accusative case; grammatical case and syntactic dependency relation are recorded separately." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-identifiers-q01", "text": "Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of accusative case this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation", "name": "Standards and regulation", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Leipzig Glossing Rules, developed by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology's Department of Linguistics and the University of Leipzig's Department of Linguistics, provide conventions for glossing case.", "Universal Dependencies project guidelines define the Acc value of the Case feature for linguistic annotation." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of accusative case 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": [ "Describing nominal and pronominal inflection in language grammars.", "Teaching the forms selected by verbs and prepositions in particular languages.", "Annotating grammatical case in corpora and treebanks.", "Comparing grammatical alignment and patterns of object marking across languages.", "Developing morphological analysers and syntactic parsers." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of accusative case 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": [ "Equating accusative case with direct-object function: some accusatives are not direct objects, and some direct objects receive other cases or no overt case marking.", "Treating accusative as a semantic role such as patient, although case marking and semantic roles do not correspond one to one.", "Assuming every accusative has a distinctive ending; syncretism can make accusative forms identical to other case forms.", "Transferring one language's rules for accusative assignment to another language.", "Confusing a language's nominative-accusative alignment with the presence of an overt accusative case form." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of accusative case 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": [ "In German, accusative appears on articles, pronouns and some other nominal forms, and is selected by particular verbs and prepositions.", "In Russian, accusative forms interact with animacy in parts of the nominal paradigm, producing forms shared with nominative or genitive.", "In Turkish, accusative marking of direct objects is associated with specificity; some direct objects occur without an accusative suffix." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of accusative case 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": "Grammatical case", "difference": "The broader category of grammatical distinctions to which accusative belongs." }, { "name": "Direct object", "difference": "A syntactic function rather than a case value; its case marking depends on the language and construction." }, { "name": "Nominative case", "difference": "Characteristically marks subjects in nominative-accusative systems, whereas accusative characteristically marks transitive direct objects." }, { "name": "Absolutive case", "difference": "In ergative-absolutive alignment, groups intransitive subjects with transitive objects, whereas accusative characteristically distinguishes transitive objects from both kinds of subject." }, { "name": "Dative case", "difference": "Characteristically associated with recipients and indirect objects, though actual case assignment is language-specific." }, { "name": "Objective case", "difference": "Can name a broader object-form category, such as English me or him, whose distribution includes functions served by several distinct cases in other languages." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of accusative case this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which reference descriptions and theoretical traditions should anchor the model's treatment of accusative, and where do their definitions disagree?", "What evidence should qualify an expression as abstract accusative when its language or paradigm supplies no overt accusative contrast?", "How should language-specific accusative categories be compared without assuming that their distributions or diagnostics are equivalent?", "Which documented alternations require distinguishing case assignment from differential expression of an unchanged case value?", "What annotation policy best preserves competing analyses when syncretism or incomplete constructional evidence prevents a unique accusative decision?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 18, "questions": 30 } }, "draft": { "generator": "vr.draft.v3", "status": "draft-generated", "researched": false, "archetype": "abstract concept", "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. This entry carries no facets of its own, so they were inferred from its domain - a guess about a whole domain applied to one thing.", "facetsInferred": true, "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 accusative case, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an AI agent to recognise, analyse and annotate accusative case in a specified language and construction while preserving uncertainty about its identification, realisation and grammatical function.", "characteristics": { "substance": "abstract", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "observed and measured" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Names folded into this entry, which a task may need to split apart again: Zustandsakkusativ.", "1 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it.", "Described in 71 Wikipedia languages, which is a measure of how widely the thing is known, not of how important it is." ], "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 accusative case, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "an abstraction with no physical instance", "physicalCharacter": [ "Does nothing on its own; everything it does, something else did to it.", "These come from the domain this entry sits in rather than from the entry itself, so treat them as a first guess about the whole domain applied to one thing." ], "whatCanBeDoneWithIt": [ "observe it, measure it, record its state" ], "howItIsRecognised": [ "Nothing to see. What is recognised is an instance of it, and which instances count is exactly what is argued about." ], "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": [ "Zustandsakkusativ" ] } ], "standing": "Described in 71 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is. 1 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 accusative case from another, and a accusative case 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 accusative case, 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 accusative case, 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 accusative case 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 accusative case, 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 accusative case, 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 accusative case 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 accusative case 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 accusative case, 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 accusative case, 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 accusative case 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 accusative case from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a accusative case, 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 accusative case, 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 accusative case 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 accusative case 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 accusative case between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a accusative case, 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 accusative case, 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 accusative case 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 accusative case, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a accusative case 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 accusative case, 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 accusative case, 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 accusative case is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "definitions-in-contest", "name": "Definitions and who holds them", "description": "What accusative case is taken to mean, and by whom.", "rationale": "When a field disagrees about a concept, the disagreement is the content. A model that picks one definition silently destroys the information.", "layers": [ { "id": "competing-definitions", "name": "Competing definitions", "description": "The main readings and the traditions behind them.", "findings": [ { "id": "definition-map", "name": "Definitions and their holders", "description": "Each definition with the school or body that holds it.", "questions": [ { "id": "definition-map-q01", "text": "Which definitions of accusative case are in use, and which tradition or body holds each?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "definition-map-q02", "text": "What turns on the difference between them in practice?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "operationalisation", "name": "Operationalisation", "description": "How it is measured or applied when it has to be.", "findings": [ { "id": "operational-record", "name": "Measures and proxies", "description": "Instruments and indicators used to stand in for it.", "questions": [ { "id": "operational-record-q01", "text": "How is accusative case operationalised or measured in practice, and by what instrument?", "kind": "measurement" }, { "id": "operational-record-q02", "text": "What does that operationalisation leave out, and when does that matter?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "instances-and-use", "name": "Instances, use and consequence", "description": "What counts as an instance of accusative case and what follows from calling something that.", "rationale": "Applying a concept is an act with consequences, so a model must say what the label licenses and what it does not.", "layers": [ { "id": "instances", "name": "What counts as an instance", "description": "Clear cases, borderline cases and non-cases.", "findings": [ { "id": "instance-tests", "name": "Tests for an instance", "description": "What would settle whether something falls under it.", "questions": [ { "id": "instance-tests-q01", "text": "What would settle whether something is an instance of accusative case?", "kind": "boundary" }, { "id": "instance-tests-q02", "text": "Which borderline cases are argued about, and on what grounds?", "kind": "definition" } ] } ] }, { "id": "consequence", "name": "Consequence of application", "description": "Rights, duties or decisions that follow from the label.", "findings": [ { "id": "consequence-record", "name": "What the label licenses", "description": "What an agent may do once something is classified this way.", "questions": [ { "id": "consequence-record-q01", "text": "What follows practically once something is treated as accusative case?", "kind": "action" }, { "id": "consequence-record-q02", "text": "What must an agent not infer from the label alone?", "kind": "action" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "provenance-and-evidence", "name": "Provenance, evidence and time", "description": "Where every claim about a accusative case 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 accusative case and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a accusative case, 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 accusative case, 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 accusative case 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 accusative case is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a accusative case, 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 accusative case, 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 accusative case is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 10, "findings": 12, "questions": 32 } } } }