{ "model": { "rank": 5285, "code": "thing-q181741", "model_id": "vr.tr.event-horizon", "name": "event horizon", "purpose": "Enable an agent to identify an event horizon, assess the assumptions and evidence supporting it, and determine which causal and geometric conclusions are justified.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Information and virtual systems", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "INF", "domain": "INF.KNW", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q181741/", "tier": 2, "score": 68, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [], "aliasCount": 0, "merged": 0, "knownIn": 68, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q181741", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q181741", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T22:03:16Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 17.4, "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: 01a08831-4c00-7132-a5f9-94f3703a26d2\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: event horizon\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: INF.KNW\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 005: 1001 r", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 69.8, "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: 01a08831-4c0f-74a3-b324-280adfb85f73\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: event horizon\nRegistry id: vr.tr.event-horizon\nPlane / domain: INF / INF.KNW\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q181741", "registryId": "vr.tr.event-horizon", "name": "event horizon", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "INF.KNW" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q181741/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.event-horizon", "name": "event horizon", "purpose": "Enable an agent to identify an event horizon, assess the assumptions and evidence supporting it, and determine which causal and geometric conclusions are justified.", "definition": "An event horizon is a global causal boundary in spacetime separating events that can send signals to a specified future observer or asymptotic region from events that cannot.", "scope_statement": "This model owns vr.tr.event-horizon as an INF / INF.KNW concept in relativistic physics: a globally defined causal boundary relative to a specified future destination or observer history, covering black-hole and cosmological event horizons without treating the concept as a discipline or material surface.", "in_scope": [ "Causal definition, future destination and observer dependence", "Existence and identification within a specified spacetime", "Null generators, horizon cross-sections and geometric quantities", "Formation, evolution and dependence on future spacetime development", "Evidence, computational reconstruction and permitted inferences" ], "out_of_scope": [ "The complete black hole, including its interior and surrounding accretion flow", "General relativity as a discipline or complete theory", "Apparent, trapping, particle and Cauchy horizons as independently defined concepts", "Photon spheres, black-hole shadows and telescope imaging systems", "Singularities and complete theories of quantum gravity", "Metaphorical uses and creative works titled Event Horizon" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Identification requires a global causal criterion and a specified future destination; a locally measured gravitational field alone does not establish an event horizon.", "An apparent horizon is identified using trapped-surface conditions on a spatial slice; its coincidence with an event horizon requires additional justification.", "A cosmological event horizon concerns eventual signal reception, whereas a particle horizon concerns signals that could have arrived since the cosmological past.", "An event horizon is a causal boundary, not a material shell or a curvature singularity.", "A black-hole shadow is an optical observable whose boundary must not be equated directly with the event horizon." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Horizon sense", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "black-hole future event horizon | cosmological observer event horizon | other explicitly defined causal-horizon usage", "why_it_matters": "Determines which causal destination and boundary convention apply." }, { "name": "Causal destination", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Reference to future null infinity, a future-inextendible observer worldline, or another explicitly justified destination", "why_it_matters": "The boundary cannot be interpreted without specifying where signals must be able to arrive." }, { "name": "Supporting spacetime", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Metric or spacetime solution, dimensionality, extension and boundary conditions", "why_it_matters": "Horizon existence and location depend on the adopted spacetime." }, { "name": "Existence assessment", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "established within model | conditionally inferred | unresolved | absent within model", "why_it_matters": "Separates mathematical existence from an observational interpretation." }, { "name": "Cross-section area", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "m² in four-dimensional spacetime; specified spatial cut required", "why_it_matters": "Supports geometric comparison and qualified thermodynamic calculations." }, { "name": "Radius convention", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "areal radius | named coordinate radius | other defined radius | not applicable", "why_it_matters": "Prevents a coordinate value from being interpreted as an invariant physical distance." }, { "name": "Evolution regime", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "stationary | dynamical | asymptotically stationary | unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Controls whether stationary formulas and horizon coincidences are applicable." }, { "name": "Identification basis", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "analytic causal construction | numerical reconstruction | observational inference through a model", "why_it_matters": "Determines the limitations attached to the claimed horizon." } ], "affordances": [ "Classify a proposed boundary by testing its causal definition against the stated spacetime.", "Evaluate whether an event can send a future-directed causal signal to the specified destination.", "Reconstruct a candidate horizon from a spacetime solution while recording future-boundary assumptions.", "Calculate cross-section geometry using explicitly applicable formulas and conventions.", "Compare event horizons with apparent horizons, particle horizons and optical boundaries.", "Qualify conclusions when future evolution, observational evidence or theoretical assumptions remain insufficient." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "causal-definition", "name": "Causal definition", "description": "Identify the exact causal boundary represented by the registered concept.", "rationale": "Event horizons are defined through causal accessibility, so the destination and direction of accessibility are essential.", "layers": [ { "id": "black-hole-boundary", "name": "Black-hole boundary", "description": "Specify the conventional future event horizon in an asymptotically flat setting.", "findings": [ { "id": "escape-destination", "name": "Escape destination", "description": "In the standard asymptotically flat definition, the black-hole event horizon is the spacetime boundary of the causal past of future null infinity. Record the destination and applicable assumptions. [The Thermodynamics of Black Holes](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5253844/)", "questions": [ { "text": "Which future infinity or alternative destination defines escape in this spacetime?", "kind": "definition", "id": "escape-destination-q01" }, { "text": "Does the adopted spacetime possess the asymptotic structure required by this definition?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "escape-destination-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "cosmological-boundary", "name": "Cosmological boundary", "description": "Specify an observer's ultimate causal reach in a cosmological spacetime.", "findings": [ { "id": "future-reception-limit", "name": "Future reception limit", "description": "A cosmological event horizon concerns limits on eventual reception; a particle horizon concerns causal access from the past. Record the observer and the assumed future expansion. [Modern cosmology](https://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Modern_cosmology)", "questions": [ { "text": "Which observer worldline and future endpoint define eventual reception?", "kind": "definition", "id": "future-reception-limit-q01" }, { "text": "Under the assumed expansion history, is the remaining future conformal-time interval finite?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "future-reception-limit-q02" }, { "text": "Is the reported boundary an event horizon, a particle horizon or a Hubble-radius construction?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "future-reception-limit-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "spacetime-and-existence", "name": "Spacetime and existence", "description": "Establish the mathematical setting and the strength of the existence claim.", "rationale": "A horizon belongs to a complete causal structure; a name, mass estimate or coordinate feature is insufficient.", "layers": [ { "id": "solution-assumptions", "name": "Solution assumptions", "description": "Record the spacetime, its extension and the assumptions used to identify the horizon.", "findings": [ { "id": "adopted-spacetime", "name": "Adopted spacetime", "description": "Require a traceable metric or spacetime construction and its domain before assigning a horizon.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which published solution, simulation or explicit metric supplies the causal structure?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "adopted-spacetime-q01" }, { "text": "Which assumptions about symmetry, matter, asymptotics and spacetime extension affect horizon existence?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "adopted-spacetime-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "global-completion", "name": "Global completion", "description": "Expose dependence on future evolution beyond the available data.", "findings": [ { "id": "future-dependent-status", "name": "Future-dependent status", "description": "Event horizons are global properties of spacetime. Record which future development is established and which is assumed. [Basics of Apparent Horizons in Black Hole Physics](https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.05119)", "questions": [ { "text": "How is the spacetime continued beyond the observed or simulated interval?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "future-dependent-status-q01" }, { "text": "Could an alternative admissible future continuation change the existence or location of the proposed horizon?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "future-dependent-status-q02" }, { "text": "Should the agent report a proven horizon within a model, a conditional reconstruction or an unresolved candidate?", "kind": "action", "id": "future-dependent-status-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "horizon-geometry", "name": "Horizon geometry", "description": "Represent the boundary and its measurable sections without confusing coordinates with geometry.", "rationale": "A horizon is a spacetime boundary; familiar pictures usually show only one spatial section.", "layers": [ { "id": "boundary-representation", "name": "Boundary representation", "description": "Distinguish the full horizon from its cuts, generators and plotted representations.", "findings": [ { "id": "surface-and-generators", "name": "Surface and generators", "description": "Require the representation to identify the full causal boundary, its null generators where applicable, and any cross-section selected for display or calculation.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the representation describe the full horizon hypersurface or a cross-section on a specified slice?", "kind": "definition", "id": "surface-and-generators-q01" }, { "text": "How are generators, their endpoints and any nonsmooth joining regions represented?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "surface-and-generators-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "area-and-radius", "name": "Area and radius", "description": "Attach geometric quantities to explicit cuts and conventions.", "findings": [ { "id": "geometric-quantity-contract", "name": "Geometric quantity contract", "description": "Record area and radius only with the cross-section, coordinate system, units and formula assumptions needed to interpret them.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which spatial cut defines the reported horizon area?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "geometric-quantity-contract-q01" }, { "text": "Is the reported radius an areal radius, a coordinate radius or another construction?", "kind": "definition", "id": "geometric-quantity-contract-q02" }, { "text": "What justifies applying a Schwarzschild, Kerr or other solution-specific formula here?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "geometric-quantity-contract-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evolution-and-crossing", "name": "Evolution and crossing", "description": "Track horizon change and interpret trajectories relative to its causal role.", "rationale": "An agent must distinguish physical causal restrictions from coordinate descriptions and assumption-dependent evolution laws.", "layers": [ { "id": "dynamical-history", "name": "Dynamical history", "description": "Describe formation and changing horizon sections with explicit time and slicing conventions.", "findings": [ { "id": "formation-and-area-change", "name": "Formation and area change", "description": "Record the slicing used for formation or merger statements. Apply a classical area nondecrease conclusion only after checking the theorem's energy and global assumptions. [The Thermodynamics of Black Holes](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5253844/)", "questions": [ { "text": "Which foliation defines the reported formation time or merger of horizon sections?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "formation-and-area-change-q01" }, { "text": "Which assumptions justify the claimed direction of area change, and are quantum effects excluded?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "formation-and-area-change-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "crossing-and-signals", "name": "Crossing and signals", "description": "Assess worldlines and signal destinations without treating the horizon as a material obstruction.", "findings": [ { "id": "trajectory-interpretation", "name": "Trajectory interpretation", "description": "Require a trajectory, time convention and receiving destination for claims about crossing, delay or escape.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the specified worldline cross the candidate horizon, and what proper time is assigned to that crossing?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "trajectory-interpretation-q01" }, { "text": "Does a claimed infinite delay concern a coordinate time, signal reception or the traveler's proper time?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "trajectory-interpretation-q02" }, { "text": "Which signal destinations remain causally accessible from the event being assessed?", "kind": "action", "id": "trajectory-interpretation-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "identification-and-inference", "name": "Identification and inference", "description": "Connect evidence and reconstruction methods to appropriately limited conclusions.", "rationale": "Observations and finite simulations support horizon claims through models and must retain those dependencies.", "layers": [ { "id": "numerical-reconstruction", "name": "Numerical reconstruction", "description": "Assess horizon finding in a finite simulated spacetime.", "findings": [ { "id": "reconstruction-dependencies", "name": "Reconstruction dependencies", "description": "Event-horizon reconstruction uses causal evolution and differs from finding an apparent horizon on a slice. Record the algorithm and assumptions beyond the simulation endpoint. [Event and Apparent Horizon Finders for 3 + 1 Numerical Relativity](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5660890/)", "questions": [ { "text": "Which reconstruction algorithm, terminal surface and future-settling assumptions were used?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "reconstruction-dependencies-q01" }, { "text": "How sensitive is the reconstructed boundary to resolution, terminal time and terminal-surface choice?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "reconstruction-dependencies-q02" }, { "text": "Was an apparent horizon substituted, and what establishes the accuracy of that substitution?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "reconstruction-dependencies-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "observational-interpretation", "name": "Observational interpretation", "description": "Separate measured signals from the global boundary inferred through a spacetime model.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-to-horizon-claim", "name": "Evidence-to-horizon claim", "description": "Attach observations to the model connecting them with a horizon claim. Distinguish inferred event horizons from locally accessible horizon diagnostics. [Physical observability of horizons](https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.7295)", "questions": [ { "text": "Which measured signal and published analysis support the claimed horizon interpretation?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "evidence-to-horizon-claim-q01" }, { "text": "Which alternative spacetime or compact-object models were assessed against that evidence?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "evidence-to-horizon-claim-q02" }, { "text": "What horizon claim can the agent report while preserving the observational and future-evolution limitations?", "kind": "action", "id": "evidence-to-horizon-claim-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 general-relativistic concept, not a discipline; the supplied INF.KNW classification should be checked.", "Horizon definitions depend on the observer or asymptotic structure under consideration; not every expanding universe has a cosmological event horizon.", "The measurement formulas apply only to Schwarzschild black holes; rotation and charge require different expressions." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of event horizon 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": [ "Black-hole event horizon", "Cosmological event horizon" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of event horizon 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": [ "Defining black-hole regions in general relativity.", "Determining limits on future communication in cosmological models.", "Studying black-hole thermodynamics and the information paradox.", "Locating black-hole boundaries in numerical spacetime simulations." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of event horizon this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-measurements", "name": "Typical measurements", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "quantity": "Schwarzschild horizon areal radius", "typical_range": "No universal range; r = 2GM/c², approximately 2.95 kilometres per solar mass, for an uncharged, nonrotating black hole.", "unit": "km" }, { "quantity": "Schwarzschild horizon area", "typical_range": "No universal range; A = 4πr², where r is the horizon's areal radius.", "unit": "m²" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of event horizon 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": [ "Identifying an event horizon generally requires knowledge of the spacetime's entire future; local measurements alone cannot establish its location.", "Confusing an event horizon with an apparent horizon can misidentify the boundary in a dynamical spacetime.", "Treating an event horizon as a material surface or curvature singularity misrepresents its physical meaning.", "A black-hole image's shadow is not the event horizon itself; its appearance depends on light propagation and surrounding emission.", "Inside a black-hole event horizon, future-directed signals cannot escape to the external asymptotic region; tidal forces near the horizon depend on the black hole's mass and the trajectory." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of event horizon 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": "Apparent horizon", "difference": "Defined using marginally trapped surfaces on a chosen spatial slice, whereas an event horizon is defined by global causal accessibility." }, { "name": "Particle horizon", "difference": "Limits what could have communicated with an observer by the present, whereas a cosmological event horizon limits what can ever communicate with that observer." }, { "name": "Hubble sphere", "difference": "Marks where cosmological recession speed equals the speed of light; it is not generally an event horizon." }, { "name": "Singularity", "difference": "Concerns the breakdown or incompleteness of spacetime, whereas an event horizon can be a locally regular boundary." }, { "name": "Black hole", "difference": "The black hole is the spacetime region unable to communicate with future null infinity; its event horizon is that region's boundary." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of event horizon this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Does the registry intend both black-hole and cosmological event horizons, or only the black-hole sense?", "Which existing Vercy world model, if any, already owns this causal-boundary concept and should be reused?", "Should acceleration horizons and past event horizons be included as explicit senses or linked to neighbouring models?", "Which operational evidence standard should distinguish an observationally supported horizon interpretation from existence established within a mathematical model?", "How should the model represent proposed evaporation scenarios when the complete future spacetime and the persistence of an event horizon remain unsettled?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 16, "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 event horizon, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to identify an event horizon, assess the assumptions and evidence supporting it, and determine which causal and geometric conclusions are justified.", "characteristics": { "substance": "information", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "read and interpreted" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Described in 68 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 event horizon, 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 68 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 event horizon from another, and a event horizon 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 event horizon, 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 event horizon, 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 event horizon 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 event horizon, 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 event horizon, 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 event horizon 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 event horizon 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 event horizon, 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 event horizon, 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 event horizon 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 event horizon from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a event horizon, 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 event horizon, 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 event horizon 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 event horizon 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 event horizon between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a event horizon, 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 event horizon, 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 event horizon 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 event horizon, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a event horizon 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 event horizon, 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 event horizon, 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 event horizon 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 event horizon 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 event horizon contains and in what form it is held.", "questions": [ { "id": "content-and-format-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the content of a event horizon, 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 event horizon, 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 event horizon 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 event horizon and the period it survives.", "questions": [ { "id": "access-rules-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes access to a event horizon, 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 event horizon, 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 event horizon 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 event horizon 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 event horizon 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 event horizon 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 event horizon 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 event horizon 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 event horizon, 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 event horizon 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 event horizon and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a event horizon, 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 event horizon, 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 event horizon 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 event horizon is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a event horizon, 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 event horizon, 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 event horizon 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 } } } }