{ "model": { "rank": 4357, "code": "thing-q184211", "model_id": "vr.tr.monogamy", "name": "monogamy", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise the sense of monogamy being described, assess its stated or observed status over time, and identify which interpretations or actions the available evidence supports.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Information and virtual systems", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "INF", "domain": "INF.KNW", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q184211/", "tier": 2, "score": 76, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [ "Social monogamy in mammalian species" ], "aliasCount": 1, "merged": 1, "knownIn": 76, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q184211", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q184211", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T20:02:22Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 22.6, "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: 01a087c2-acd5-7061-a901-9a885a75e85c\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: monogamy\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: INF.KNW\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 695 things:\n# Batch 004: 1001 registe", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 65.2, "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: 01a087c2-ace1-7783-be6d-472d726a2cfd\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: monogamy\nRegistry id: vr.tr.monogamy\nPlane / domain: INF / INF.KNW\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\nContex" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q184211", "registryId": "vr.tr.monogamy", "name": "monogamy", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "INF.KNW" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q184211/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.monogamy", "name": "monogamy", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise the sense of monogamy being described, assess its stated or observed status over time, and identify which interpretations or actions the available evidence supports.", "definition": "Monogamy is a relationship or mating arrangement involving one partner at a time, with marital, social, sexual, and genetic exclusivity distinguished because they do not necessarily coincide.", "scope_statement": "This model owns monogamy as a concept of having one spouse or partner at a time within a specified marital, romantic, sexual, social or reproductive frame, distinguishing norms, agreements and observed patterns without treating monogamy as a discipline or assuming those frames coincide.", "in_scope": [ "Definitions distinguishing marital, romantic, sexual, social and genetic senses of monogamy", "Exclusivity expectations and agreements within human partnerships", "Concurrent versus successive partnerships and the time intervals used to classify them", "Institutional prescriptions and their relationship to individual arrangements", "Evidence supporting or limiting classifications of monogamy in human and nonhuman contexts" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Marriage ceremonies, registration procedures and complete marriage law", "Comprehensive models of polygamy, polyamory and other relationship arrangements", "Sexual orientation, gender identity and personality classifications", "Complete accounts of kinship, households and parenting", "Species-wide reproductive biology and evolutionary explanations", "Clinical diagnosis or treatment of relationship difficulties" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "A classification must identify what is exclusive: spouses, romantic partners, sexual partners, social partners or reproductive partners.", "Having several partners successively does not establish concurrent nonmonogamy; the relevant periods and their overlap must be recorded.", "An exclusive agreement and behaviour consistent with that agreement are separate propositions requiring separate evidence.", "A marriage rule, a person's relationship preference and an observed partnership pattern operate at different levels and cannot substitute for one another.", "Social pairing alone does not establish sexual exclusivity or exclusive genetic parentage." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Exclusivity frame", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "marital | romantic | sexual | social | genetic; multiple frames permitted", "why_it_matters": "Specifies which sense of monogamy a claim concerns." }, { "name": "Classification target", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "individual | partnership | institution | population | species-level claim", "why_it_matters": "Prevents a claim about a rule or population from being assigned automatically to an individual relationship." }, { "name": "Claim basis", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "prescribed norm | expressed preference | explicit agreement | reported behaviour | observed pattern | parentage evidence", "why_it_matters": "Separates what is expected or intended from what evidence indicates occurred." }, { "name": "Concurrent qualifying partner count", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "partners per specified frame and interval; unknown permitted", "why_it_matters": "Tests numerical exclusivity only after the meaning of a qualifying partner has been established." }, { "name": "Assessment interval", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "start and end dates, or a named interval such as breeding season; duration in days or years when appropriate", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes a time-bounded classification from an unsupported lifetime claim." }, { "name": "Agreement alignment", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "mutually explicit | partially aligned | disputed | unstated | unknown | not applicable", "why_it_matters": "Shows whether participants share the exclusivity boundary attributed to their partnership." }, { "name": "Institutional context", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "links to applicable legal, religious or customary rules, with place and date", "why_it_matters": "Locates prescriptions without treating them as evidence of individual conduct." }, { "name": "Evidence status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "supported within stated limits | contradicted | mixed | insufficient | unassessed", "why_it_matters": "Makes the limits of a monogamy classification visible." } ], "affordances": [ "Disambiguate a monogamy claim by identifying its exclusivity frame, target and time interval.", "Compare participants' stated boundaries and identify unresolved differences without assigning blame.", "Assess whether available evidence supports a particular monogamy classification.", "Distinguish successive partnerships from overlapping partnerships using a qualified timeline.", "Identify when a rule or agreement needs clarification before proposing relationship-related action.", "Compare research claims only after checking that their definitions and observation units are compatible." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "senses-and-boundaries", "name": "Senses and boundaries", "description": "Establishes which meaning of monogamy applies and what counts as an exclusive partnership.", "rationale": "The word can describe different relationships between pairing, marriage, sexual conduct and reproduction.", "layers": [ { "id": "exclusivity-frames", "name": "Exclusivity frames", "description": "Separates dimensions that a monogamy claim may combine.", "findings": [ { "id": "specified-exclusive-domain", "name": "Specified exclusive domain", "description": "Record the domain of exclusivity explicitly and preserve separate classifications where domains differ.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does monogamy here concern marriage, romance, sexual activity, social pairing, genetic parentage or a specified combination?", "kind": "definition", "id": "specified-exclusive-domain-q01" }, { "text": "Which additional forms of exclusivity, if any, are being assumed without separate evidence?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "specified-exclusive-domain-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "qualifying-partnerships", "name": "Qualifying partnerships", "description": "Defines the relationship threshold and the entity being classified.", "findings": [ { "id": "partner-and-target-definition", "name": "Partner and target definition", "description": "Specify who or what is classified and which relationships count before interpreting partner counts.", "questions": [ { "text": "What makes someone a qualifying partner in the selected frame?", "kind": "definition", "id": "partner-and-target-definition-q01" }, { "text": "Is the claim about an individual's conduct, a partnership, an institutional rule or a population pattern?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "partner-and-target-definition-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "human-agreements-and-norms", "name": "Human agreements and norms", "description": "Distinguishes mutually understood exclusivity from personal expectations and institutional prescriptions.", "rationale": "An agent must know whose expectations apply before interpreting conduct or suggesting clarification.", "layers": [ { "id": "partner-understandings", "name": "Partner understandings", "description": "Records what participants understand their exclusivity commitment to cover.", "findings": [ { "id": "negotiated-exclusivity-boundaries", "name": "Negotiated exclusivity boundaries", "description": "Capture explicit commitments, differences in understanding and unresolved boundaries without inferring agreement from a relationship label.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which romantic, sexual or other interactions do the participants explicitly include within their exclusivity commitment?", "kind": "definition", "id": "negotiated-exclusivity-boundaries-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence establishes mutual agreement, and which boundaries remain unstated or disputed?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "negotiated-exclusivity-boundaries-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "institutional-prescriptions", "name": "Institutional prescriptions", "description": "Locates marital or relationship rules in their applicable context.", "findings": [ { "id": "rule-versus-lived-arrangement", "name": "Rule versus lived arrangement", "description": "Record the authority, scope and date of an exclusivity rule separately from the conduct or agreements of people subject to it.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which legal, religious or customary source prescribes monogamy, for whom, and at what place and time?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "rule-versus-lived-arrangement-q01" }, { "text": "Does that prescription regulate spouse count, sexual conduct or another boundary, and what does it leave unspecified?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "rule-versus-lived-arrangement-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "partnerships-through-time", "name": "Partnerships through time", "description": "Represents exclusivity as a time-bounded claim that can change across relationship transitions.", "rationale": "Counting lifetime partners without checking overlap can misclassify successive relationships.", "layers": [ { "id": "concurrency-and-succession", "name": "Concurrency and succession", "description": "Distinguishes overlapping partnerships from a sequence of exclusive partnerships.", "findings": [ { "id": "frame-specific-partner-timeline", "name": "Frame-specific partner timeline", "description": "Record qualifying partnership intervals separately for each frame, preserving uncertain starts and endings.", "questions": [ { "text": "How many qualifying partnerships overlap during the assessment interval in each selected frame?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "frame-specific-partner-timeline-q01" }, { "text": "Which relationship-ending criterion is being used when separation, the end of intimacy and legal dissolution occur at different times?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "frame-specific-partner-timeline-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "duration-and-transitions", "name": "Duration and transitions", "description": "Handles changes in exclusivity and the limits of claims across time.", "findings": [ { "id": "bounded-status-and-reclassification", "name": "Bounded status and reclassification", "description": "Attach classifications to intervals and distinguish a revised agreement from conduct that departed from an existing agreement.", "questions": [ { "text": "Over what interval is monogamy supported, and are claims such as lifelong or serial justified by the available history?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "bounded-status-and-reclassification-q01" }, { "text": "What change in partnership, agreement or evidence would require the classification to be reassessed?", "kind": "action", "id": "bounded-status-and-reclassification-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "observation-and-comparative-use", "name": "Observation and comparative use", "description": "Connects monogamy classifications to appropriate evidence in human and nonhuman settings.", "rationale": "Reports, social observations and parentage evidence answer different questions and should not be treated as interchangeable.", "layers": [ { "id": "human-evidence", "name": "Human evidence", "description": "Separates relationship labels, participant reports and observations of conduct.", "findings": [ { "id": "claim-evidence-fit", "name": "Claim and evidence fit", "description": "Associate each classification with evidence that addresses its particular exclusivity frame and interval.", "questions": [ { "text": "Is the classification based on self-description, a partner's account, an explicit agreement or observed conduct?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "claim-evidence-fit-q01" }, { "text": "Which aspects of exclusivity remain unknown because the evidence does not cover them or accounts conflict?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "claim-evidence-fit-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "nonhuman-comparisons", "name": "Nonhuman comparisons", "description": "Qualifies biological uses without importing human agreements or marriage rules.", "findings": [ { "id": "pairing-mating-and-parentage", "name": "Pairing, mating and parentage", "description": "Keep social pairing, observed mating and genetic parentage distinct, with an explicit observation unit and period.", "questions": [ { "text": "What observations or parentage analyses support the stated social, sexual or genetic sense of monogamy?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "pairing-mating-and-parentage-q01" }, { "text": "Does the evidence concern a pair, a breeding season, a sampled population or a broader species-level claim?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "pairing-mating-and-parentage-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "interpretation-and-permitted-action", "name": "Interpretation and permitted action", "description": "Bounds the conclusions and interventions an agent can justify from a monogamy claim.", "rationale": "A relationship classification alone does not establish agreement compliance, relationship quality or authorization to investigate private conduct.", "layers": [ { "id": "agreement-and-conduct-assessment", "name": "Agreement and conduct assessment", "description": "Assesses reported conduct against the agreement applicable at the time.", "findings": [ { "id": "qualified-discrepancy-assessment", "name": "Qualified discrepancy assessment", "description": "Record possible departures from exclusivity only in relation to a stated boundary, relevant interval and sufficiently supported account.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which agreed boundary, if any, does the reported conduct appear to cross, and was that boundary in effect at the time?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "qualified-discrepancy-assessment-q01" }, { "text": "What clarification is needed before describing the event as a breach of the participants' agreement?", "kind": "action", "id": "qualified-discrepancy-assessment-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "privacy-and-inference-limits", "name": "Privacy and inference limits", "description": "Limits collection of intimate information and unsupported conclusions about people or relationships.", "findings": [ { "id": "proportionate-use-of-classification", "name": "Proportionate use of classification", "description": "Use the classification for the stated task while recording authorization for sensitive information and avoiding unsupported judgments about wellbeing, morality or health.", "questions": [ { "text": "What relationship or parentage information is necessary for the task, and what authorization governs its collection or disclosure?", "kind": "action", "id": "proportionate-use-of-classification-q01" }, { "text": "Which proposed conclusions about trust, satisfaction, health or moral standing require evidence beyond a monogamy label?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "proportionate-use-of-classification-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-external-alignment", "name": "Evidence and external alignment", "description": "What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.", "rationale": "A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.", "layers": [ { "id": "reported-evidence", "name": "Reported evidence", "description": "Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes", "name": "Check these first", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "No sense is recorded: this description covers the human relationship concept and its biological mating-system uses.", "Monogamy is a subject studied across disciplines, not itself a discipline; the supplied domain classification should be checked.", "Terminology varies across fields, especially for social and genetic monogamy; research should specify the partners, observation period, and evidence required." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of monogamy 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": [ "Marital monogamy", "Social monogamy", "Sexual monogamy", "Genetic monogamy", "Serial monogamy", "Lifelong monogamy" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of monogamy 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": [ "Anthropology and sociology compare marriage arrangements, household organization, and partnership norms.", "Behavioral ecology studies pair bonds, parental care, and mating systems.", "Population genetics uses parentage evidence to distinguish genetic monogamy from social pairing.", "Demography examines successive unions and the duration of partnerships.", "Partners use explicit agreements to define expectations of exclusivity." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of monogamy 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": [ "Inferring sexual or genetic exclusivity from marriage or an observed social pair bond.", "Treating a society's prescribed marriage norm as a description of every person's behavior.", "Classifying a species as uniformly monogamous despite variation among populations, individuals, or breeding periods.", "Failing to specify whether exclusivity applies to a breeding episode, a current partnership, or an entire lifetime.", "Assuming partners share the same definition of exclusivity without discussing it." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of monogamy 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": [ "Marriage norms and institutions differ across societies; prescribed monogamy and actual partnership patterns must be distinguished.", "The acceptance of divorce and remarriage affects whether successive exclusive unions are treated as ordinary marital practice.", "In nonhuman animals, social pairing and reproductive exclusivity can vary geographically with ecological conditions." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of monogamy 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": "Polygamy", "difference": "In the marital sense, polygamy involves multiple spouses concurrently; monogamy involves one spouse at a time." }, { "name": "Polyamory", "difference": "Polyamory allows multiple romantic relationships with the knowledge and consent of those involved; romantic monogamy entails an exclusive partnership." }, { "name": "Pair bonding", "difference": "A pair bond is a sustained social attachment between two individuals and does not by itself establish sexual or genetic exclusivity." }, { "name": "Celibacy", "difference": "Celibacy concerns abstention from marriage or sexual activity, depending on usage; monogamy concerns the exclusivity of a partnership." }, { "name": "Monogyny", "difference": "Monogyny can describe a male having one female mate or a social-insect colony having one queen; neither usage alone establishes reciprocal partner exclusivity." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of monogamy this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Does vr.tr.monogamy intentionally cover both human relationship concepts and biological classifications, or should one be primary with the other represented through a linked model?", "Which authoritative terminology sources should govern distinctions among marital, romantic, sexual, social and genetic monogamy?", "How should the model represent contested partnership start and end dates when legal status, participant understandings and observed conduct diverge?", "Which observation periods and sampling criteria justify population-level or species-level monogamy classifications in the research traditions being represented?", "Does an existing Vercy world model already own this concept or any of its senses, requiring linkage rather than a separate publication?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 16, "questions": 26 } }, "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 monogamy, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to recognise the sense of monogamy being described, assess its stated or observed status over time, and identify which interpretations or actions the available evidence supports.", "characteristics": { "substance": "information", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "read and interpreted" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Names folded into this entry, which a task may need to split apart again: Social monogamy in mammalian species.", "1 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it.", "Described in 76 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 monogamy, 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": [ { "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": [ "Social monogamy in mammalian species" ] } ], "standing": "Described in 76 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 monogamy from another, and a monogamy 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 monogamy, 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 monogamy, 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 monogamy 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 monogamy, 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 monogamy, 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 monogamy 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 monogamy 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 monogamy, 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 monogamy, 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 monogamy 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 monogamy from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a monogamy, 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 monogamy, 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 monogamy 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 monogamy 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 monogamy between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a monogamy, 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 monogamy, 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 monogamy 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 monogamy, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a monogamy 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 monogamy, 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 monogamy, 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 monogamy 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 monogamy 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 monogamy contains and in what form it is held.", "questions": [ { "id": "content-and-format-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the content of a monogamy, 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 monogamy, 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 monogamy 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 monogamy and the period it survives.", "questions": [ { "id": "access-rules-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes access to a monogamy, 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 monogamy, 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 monogamy 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 monogamy 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 monogamy 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 monogamy 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 monogamy 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 monogamy 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 monogamy, 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 monogamy 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 monogamy and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a monogamy, 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 monogamy, 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 monogamy 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 monogamy is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a monogamy, 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 monogamy, 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 monogamy 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 } } } }