{ "model": { "rank": 6707, "code": "thing-q174450", "model_id": "vr.tr.roman-tetrarchy", "name": "Roman Tetrarchy", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise the Roman Tetrarchy, reconstruct its changing imperial arrangements, and judge whether a claim concerns its governing system, historical operation, or later interpretation.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Information and virtual systems", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "INF", "domain": "INF.KNW", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q174450/", "tier": 2, "score": 59, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [], "aliasCount": 0, "merged": 0, "knownIn": 59, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q174450", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q174450", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T23:20:22Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 16.5, "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: 01a08877-df5f-7073-b1e7-8584777c3aef\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: Roman Tetrarchy\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: INF.KNW\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 007: 1001", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 70.2, "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: 01a08877-df5f-7eb0-8a65-5b72bac0a512\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: Roman Tetrarchy\nRegistry id: vr.tr.roman-tetrarchy\nPlane / domain: INF / INF.KNW\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q174450", "registryId": "vr.tr.roman-tetrarchy", "name": "Roman Tetrarchy", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "INF.KNW" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q174450/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.roman-tetrarchy", "name": "Roman Tetrarchy", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise the Roman Tetrarchy, reconstruct its changing imperial arrangements, and judge whether a claim concerns its governing system, historical operation, or later interpretation.", "definition": "The Roman Tetrarchy was the system of imperial government established by Diocletian in AD 293, in which two senior emperors titled Augusti and two junior emperors titled Caesares shared responsibility for ruling the Roman Empire.", "scope_statement": "This model owns the knowledge representation of Roman Tetrarchy (vr.tr.roman-tetrarchy; INF / INF.KNW): its distinctive imperial college, succession arrangements, territorial responsibilities, legitimacy claims, and contested historical boundaries.", "in_scope": [ "The relationship between two senior Augusti and two junior Caesares", "Dated membership, rank, and mutual recognition within the imperial college", "Appointment, promotion, retirement, and disputed succession", "Geographic responsibilities and coordination within a shared Roman Empire", "Evidence for collegiate legitimacy and differences between intended order and political practice", "Definitions of the tetrarchic period and its breakdown" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Generic tetrarchy as any government by four rulers", "Complete biographies of Diocletian, Maximian, and subsequent imperial claimants", "The entire administration and history of the Roman Empire", "Standalone models of military campaigns, taxation, coinage, or religious persecution", "The later Eastern and Western Roman empires as separate historical subjects", "Individual tetrarchic monuments as artworks with their own material histories" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Identify a ranked imperial college of Augusti and Caesares, rather than treating any four simultaneous rulers as a Roman Tetrarchy.", "Require a historical connection to Diocletian's collegiate arrangement; numerical resemblance alone does not establish identity.", "Distinguish geographic assignments of imperial responsibility from a claim that the empire became four sovereign states.", "Separate the governing arrangement from the wider historical period: scholarship can distinguish the functioning college from its prolonged aftermath. [The Empire of the Tetrarchs](https://academic.oup.com/book/47281)", "Treat the Roman Tetrarchy as a historical governing system represented in knowledge, rather than as a discipline inferred from its INF.KNW registry placement." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Periodisation convention", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "First college; functioning ranked college; succession crisis; extended tetrarchic aftermath; explicitly defined alternative", "why_it_matters": "Different conventions can assign different endpoints without disagreeing about individual events." }, { "name": "Reconstruction date", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "CE date or interval, with calendar convention and precision", "why_it_matters": "Membership, rank, recognition, and territorial authority changed over time." }, { "name": "Imperial rank", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Augustus; Caesar; former officeholder; disputed title; unknown", "why_it_matters": "The arrangement depends on hierarchy rather than four interchangeable positions." }, { "name": "Recognised college membership", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Person linked to rank, interval, recognising authority, and evidence", "why_it_matters": "A claimant's self-description may differ from the rank acknowledged by other emperors." }, { "name": "Recognition pattern", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Mutual recognition; partial recognition; rival colleges; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Counting officeholders alone cannot establish whether the college functioned coherently." }, { "name": "Succession relationship", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Appoints; designates; promotes; replaces; contests; relationship uncertain", "why_it_matters": "It distinguishes succession through collegiate authority from competing claims." }, { "name": "Geographic responsibility", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Ruler linked to region, headquarters, or operational area for a dated interval", "why_it_matters": "Maps must distinguish assigned responsibility, physical presence, and effective control." }, { "name": "Evidence status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Directly attested; scholarly reconstruction; disputed; insufficiently evidenced", "why_it_matters": "An agent must preserve the difference between testimony and interpretation." } ], "affordances": [ "Reconstruct a dated imperial college with separately recorded claims and recognitions.", "Compare proposed succession arrangements with actual transfers of power.", "Produce qualified maps of responsibilities and headquarters.", "Check whether an event belongs to the functioning system or its aftermath under a named convention.", "Trace a statement about tetrarchic unity or hierarchy to supporting evidence.", "Flag anachronistic partitions, unsupported constitutional rules, and unresolved title conflicts." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "identity-and-periodisation", "name": "Identity and periodisation", "description": "Define which historical arrangement and temporal extent the registered name denotes.", "rationale": "Roman Tetrarchy can name both an imperial structure and a wider period whose endpoint requires explanation.", "layers": [ { "id": "historical-referent", "name": "Historical referent", "description": "Establish identity independently of the literal meaning of four-person rule.", "findings": [ { "id": "diocletianic-college", "name": "Diocletianic college", "description": "Record the ranked collegiate arrangement as the identifying referent, while linking its rulers to separate person records.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which relationship between Augusti and Caesares defines the Roman arrangement?", "kind": "definition", "id": "diocletianic-college-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence connects the proposed referent to Diocletian's imperial college rather than another tetrarchy?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "diocletianic-college-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "temporal-boundaries", "name": "Temporal boundaries", "description": "Distinguish establishment, functioning college, disruption, and aftermath.", "findings": [ { "id": "endpoint-conventions", "name": "Endpoint conventions", "description": "Store the criterion behind each date range instead of imposing a single unexplained terminal year.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the chosen endpoint mark the loss of four ranked officeholders, failure of agreed succession, or the end of subsequent power struggles?", "kind": "definition", "id": "endpoint-conventions-q01" }, { "text": "Which scholarly account supports this periodisation?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "endpoint-conventions-q02" }, { "text": "Should the event being classified belong to the governing system itself or to its aftermath?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "endpoint-conventions-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "imperial-college-and-recognition", "name": "Imperial college and recognition", "description": "Represent officeholders, seniority, and competing acknowledgements of imperial status.", "rationale": "The Tetrarchy cannot be reconstructed reliably as an undifferentiated list of emperors.", "layers": [ { "id": "ranked-membership", "name": "Ranked membership", "description": "Connect each person to a dated imperial rank and collegiate position.", "findings": [ { "id": "officeholder-intervals", "name": "Officeholder intervals", "description": "Separate a ruler's tenure as Caesar from tenure as Augustus and from any later disputed claim.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who occupied each senior and junior position on the reconstruction date?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "officeholder-intervals-q01" }, { "text": "Which evidence establishes the beginning and end of each rank interval?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "officeholder-intervals-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "contested-recognition", "name": "Contested recognition", "description": "Represent disagreements between self-proclaimed status and recognition by other authorities.", "findings": [ { "id": "recognition-by-actor", "name": "Recognition by actor", "description": "Make recognition dependent on actor and date, avoiding a timeless legitimate-versus-usurper label.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which emperors or institutions acknowledged this person's claimed rank, and when?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "recognition-by-actor-q01" }, { "text": "Do competing recognitions produce different reconstructions of the college?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "recognition-by-actor-q02" }, { "text": "How should an agent present unresolved rank claims without silently selecting one claimant's account?", "kind": "action", "id": "recognition-by-actor-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "succession-and-disruption", "name": "Succession and disruption", "description": "Examine entry into office, promotion, retirement, and challenges to collegiate succession.", "rationale": "Managing imperial succession is central to interpreting the arrangement, but actual practice must not be mistaken for a fully documented constitution.", "layers": [ { "id": "succession-design", "name": "Succession design", "description": "Distinguish attested arrangements from inferred general rules.", "findings": [ { "id": "appointment-and-promotion", "name": "Appointment and promotion", "description": "Record who selected or promoted a ruler and whether the case supports a broader succession principle.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who authorised this Caesar's appointment or promotion to Augustus?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "appointment-and-promotion-q01" }, { "text": "Is the proposed succession rule explicitly attested or inferred from a particular transfer?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "appointment-and-promotion-q02" }, { "text": "What role did adoption, marriage, military standing, or kinship play in this appointment?", "kind": "definition", "id": "appointment-and-promotion-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "succession-stress", "name": "Succession stress", "description": "Track how departures and rival accessions altered the arrangement.", "findings": [ { "id": "transfer-and-contestation", "name": "Transfer and contestation", "description": "Analyse retirement, death, acclamation, restoration, and negotiated settlement as distinct transitions.", "questions": [ { "text": "What changed in collegiate membership and recognition after the transfer under examination?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "transfer-and-contestation-q01" }, { "text": "Did the response restore a senior-junior college or establish a different distribution of imperial power?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "transfer-and-contestation-q02" }, { "text": "Which evidence supports identifying this transition as a cause or marker of breakdown?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "transfer-and-contestation-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "territorial-government-and-coordination", "name": "Territorial government and coordination", "description": "Represent geographic responsibilities and the coordination of multiple imperial courts.", "rationale": "A four-colour map can misleadingly turn practical allocations into permanent sovereign borders.", "layers": [ { "id": "responsibilities-and-headquarters", "name": "Responsibilities and headquarters", "description": "Separate regional assignments from residences, campaigns, and effective control.", "findings": [ { "id": "dated-geographic-authority", "name": "Dated geographic authority", "description": "Attach geographic claims to a ruler, interval, type of authority, and evidence.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the evidence identify an assigned region, an imperial residence, a military operating area, or effective control?", "kind": "definition", "id": "dated-geographic-authority-q01" }, { "text": "How precisely can the relevant geographic extent and dates be established?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "dated-geographic-authority-q02" }, { "text": "Should a map use an approximate area or overlapping claims instead of a hard boundary?", "kind": "action", "id": "dated-geographic-authority-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "shared-imperial-rule", "name": "Shared imperial rule", "description": "Assess how separate rulers and courts participated in a common imperial order.", "findings": [ { "id": "joint-authority-and-local-execution", "name": "Joint authority and local execution", "description": "Distinguish collective titulature or promulgation from evidence of shared deliberation and uniform implementation.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does an act's naming of multiple emperors demonstrate collective decision-making or a formal presentation of authority?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "joint-authority-and-local-execution-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence shows coordination or divergent implementation between imperial jurisdictions?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "joint-authority-and-local-execution-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "legitimacy-and-historical-evidence", "name": "Legitimacy and historical evidence", "description": "Interpret representations of collegiate order and assess the evidence used to reconstruct it.", "rationale": "Official images of agreement and retrospective narratives of conflict reveal different aspects of tetrarchic rule.", "layers": [ { "id": "collegiate-representation", "name": "Collegiate representation", "description": "Examine how titles, imagery, and familial or divine associations expressed hierarchy and solidarity.", "findings": [ { "id": "unity-and-hierarchy-claims", "name": "Unity and hierarchy claims", "description": "Treat representations of concord, similarity, and seniority as claims whose relationship to practice needs examination.", "questions": [ { "text": "How does this coin, inscription, monument, or speech communicate equality, rank, or collegiate solidarity?", "kind": "definition", "id": "unity-and-hierarchy-claims-q01" }, { "text": "Who produced the representation, for which audience, and at what point in the college's history?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "unity-and-hierarchy-claims-q02" }, { "text": "What independent evidence would justify using this representation to infer actual cooperation?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "unity-and-hierarchy-claims-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "source-conflict-and-inference", "name": "Source conflict and inference", "description": "Assess divergent testimony about appointments, motives, authority, and failure.", "findings": [ { "id": "qualified-reconstruction", "name": "Qualified reconstruction", "description": "Preserve source date, genre, standpoint, and the inferential steps connecting testimony to a historical claim.", "questions": [ { "text": "Is this assertion supported by contemporary material evidence, a retrospective narrative, or modern synthesis?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "qualified-reconstruction-q01" }, { "text": "Which conflicting evidence or source interests limit confidence in the proposed reconstruction?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "qualified-reconstruction-q02" }, { "text": "Should the agent retain alternative reconstructions or leave the claim unresolved?", "kind": "action", "id": "qualified-reconstruction-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 is a historical governing arrangement, not a discipline or field of knowledge; the supplied domain classification should be checked.", "The first Tetrarchy dates to AD 293-305; the endpoint assigned to the broader tetrarchic period varies with the historical convention used.", "These statements are recalled historical knowledge, not findings verified against sources for this response." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of Roman Tetrarchy 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": [ "Distributed imperial leadership across widely separated military frontiers and administrative centres.", "Provided a succession arrangement in which junior emperors could advance to senior rank.", "Presented multiple emperors as a united imperial college through official imagery and titulature." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of Roman Tetrarchy 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": [ "Succession disputes undermined the intended progression from Caesar to Augustus.", "Dynastic claims and military support for rival candidates challenged appointments within the imperial college.", "Civil wars fractured cooperation among competing emperors." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of Roman Tetrarchy 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": [ "Senior and junior emperors operated in eastern and western areas of responsibility while maintaining the principle of one Roman Empire.", "Imperial residences near strategic frontiers reduced Rome's role as the emperors' regular seat of government." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of Roman Tetrarchy 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": "Tetrarchy", "difference": "Tetrarchy generally means rule by four; the Roman Tetrarchy denotes the specific imperial arrangement introduced under Diocletian." }, { "name": "Diocletian's reign", "difference": "Diocletian's reign began before the four-emperor arrangement, and tetrarchic government continued after his abdication." }, { "name": "Roman Empire", "difference": "The Roman Empire was the polity governed; the Tetrarchy was one arrangement for distributing its imperial authority." }, { "name": "Eastern and Western Roman Empires", "difference": "Tetrarchic regional responsibilities did not constitute the later enduring division into eastern and western imperial courts." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of Roman Tetrarchy this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which periodisation should serve as the default for this registry entry, and which alternative endpoints must remain available?", "How far can a planned, repeatable succession mechanism be demonstrated beyond the particular appointments and retirements that occurred?", "How precisely can regional responsibilities be reconstructed without imposing fixed territorial partitions?", "Which dated sources resolve conflicting imperial titles and recognitions during the succession crises?", "Which reforms commonly labelled tetrarchic can be attributed to the collegiate arrangement itself rather than to individual rulers or broader late Roman developments?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 15, "questions": 32 } }, "draft": { "generator": "vr.draft.v3", "status": "draft-generated", "researched": false, "archetype": "discipline or field of knowledge", "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 Roman Tetrarchy, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to recognise the Roman Tetrarchy, reconstruct its changing imperial arrangements, and judge whether a claim concerns its governing system, historical operation, or later interpretation.", "characteristics": { "substance": "information", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "read and interpreted" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Described in 59 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 Roman Tetrarchy, 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.", "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": [ "read it and act on what it says" ], "howItIsRecognised": [], "relatedModels": [], "standing": "Described in 59 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is.", "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "identity-and-classification", "name": "Identity, naming and classification", "description": "How an agent tells one Roman Tetrarchy from another, and a Roman Tetrarchy 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 Roman Tetrarchy, 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 Roman Tetrarchy, 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 Roman Tetrarchy 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 Roman Tetrarchy, 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 Roman Tetrarchy, 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 Roman Tetrarchy 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 Roman Tetrarchy 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 Roman Tetrarchy, 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 Roman Tetrarchy, 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 Roman Tetrarchy 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 Roman Tetrarchy from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a Roman Tetrarchy, 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 Roman Tetrarchy, 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 Roman Tetrarchy 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 Roman Tetrarchy 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 Roman Tetrarchy between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a Roman Tetrarchy, 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 Roman Tetrarchy, 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 Roman Tetrarchy 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 Roman Tetrarchy, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a Roman Tetrarchy 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 Roman Tetrarchy, 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 Roman Tetrarchy, 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 Roman Tetrarchy 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 Roman Tetrarchy 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 Roman Tetrarchy contains and in what form it is held.", "questions": [ { "id": "content-and-format-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the content of a Roman Tetrarchy, 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 Roman Tetrarchy, 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 Roman Tetrarchy 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 Roman Tetrarchy and the period it survives.", "questions": [ { "id": "access-rules-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes access to a Roman Tetrarchy, 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 Roman Tetrarchy, 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 Roman Tetrarchy is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "subject-and-method", "name": "Subject matter and method", "description": "What Roman Tetrarchy studies and how it establishes anything.", "rationale": "A field is identified by its questions and its methods, and those are what distinguish it from the fields next to it.", "layers": [ { "id": "subject", "name": "Subject matter", "description": "The questions it takes as its own.", "findings": [ { "id": "subject-record", "name": "Questions and objects of study", "description": "What it is about, stated so a neighbouring field can be told apart.", "questions": [ { "id": "subject-record-q01", "text": "What questions and objects does Roman Tetrarchy take as its own?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "subject-record-q02", "text": "Which questions does it share with a neighbouring field, and who claims them?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "method", "name": "Method and evidence", "description": "How claims are established and what counts as evidence.", "findings": [ { "id": "method-record", "name": "Methods and standards of evidence", "description": "The methods used and what they are taken to establish.", "questions": [ { "id": "method-record-q01", "text": "By what methods does Roman Tetrarchy establish claims, and what counts as sufficient evidence?", "kind": "provenance" }, { "id": "method-record-q02", "text": "What kind of claim can this field not settle, and where should an agent look instead?", "kind": "action" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "institutions-and-classification", "name": "Institutions and classification", "description": "Where Roman Tetrarchy is practised and how catalogues place it.", "rationale": "The institutional footprint is the evidence that a field exists as a field rather than as a topic.", "layers": [ { "id": "institutions", "name": "Institutional markers", "description": "Societies, journals, degrees and departments.", "findings": [ { "id": "institution-record", "name": "Bodies and venues", "description": "Where the field organises itself.", "questions": [ { "id": "institution-record-q01", "text": "Which societies, journals or degrees mark Roman Tetrarchy as an established field?", "kind": "provenance" }, { "id": "institution-record-q02", "text": "What would show that it is emerging or dissolving rather than established?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "classification", "name": "Classification schemes", "description": "Where library and research classifications put it.", "findings": [ { "id": "classification-record", "name": "Codes and their disagreements", "description": "The classification codes that place it, and where they differ.", "questions": [ { "id": "classification-record-q01", "text": "Which classification schemes place Roman Tetrarchy, under what codes?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "classification-record-q02", "text": "Where do those schemes disagree about its scope?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "provenance-and-evidence", "name": "Provenance, evidence and time", "description": "Where every claim about a Roman Tetrarchy 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 Roman Tetrarchy and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a Roman Tetrarchy, 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 Roman Tetrarchy, 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 Roman Tetrarchy 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 Roman Tetrarchy is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a Roman Tetrarchy, 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 Roman Tetrarchy, 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 Roman Tetrarchy 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 } } } }