{ "model": { "rank": 5177, "code": "thing-q185969", "model_id": "vr.tr.geoid", "name": "geoid", "purpose": "Enable an agent to identify a geoid realization, assess its suitability as a height reference, and apply it only with compatible geodetic conventions and documented uncertainty.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Cross-cutting context", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "XCT", "domain": "XCT.QLT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q185969/", "tier": 2, "score": 69, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [], "aliasCount": 0, "merged": 0, "knownIn": 69, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q185969", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q185969", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T21:50:11Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 21.1, "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: 01a08825-6189-7983-a7fc-dee3e83bf8a4\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: geoid\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: XCT.QLT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 005: 1001 registere", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 65.9, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a08825-6189-7621-b540-6e8b2a042f16\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: geoid\nRegistry id: vr.tr.geoid\nPlane / domain: XCT / XCT.QLT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\nContext for " } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q185969", "registryId": "vr.tr.geoid", "name": "geoid", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "XCT.QLT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q185969/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.geoid", "name": "geoid", "purpose": "Enable an agent to identify a geoid realization, assess its suitability as a height reference, and apply it only with compatible geodetic conventions and documented uncertainty.", "definition": "The geoid is an equipotential surface of Earth's gravity field, including centrifugal effects from rotation, chosen to approximate global mean sea level and continued beneath the continents.", "scope_statement": "This model owns vr.tr.geoid as the concept of an Earth gravity equipotential reference surface and the evidence needed to interpret its numerical realizations, distinguishing the surface from the products that approximate or adapt it.", "in_scope": [ "Definition of the reference equipotential surface and selection of its potential value W0", "Relationship to mean sea level, reference ellipsoids, and orthometric heights", "Gravimetric realizations and identification of datum-fitted hybrid products", "Reference frame, permanent-tide convention, epoch, and geographic applicability", "Geoid undulation, validation evidence, uncertainty, and permitted height conversions" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Complete models of Earth's gravity field and interior mass distribution", "Reference ellipsoid geometry and terrestrial reference-frame maintenance", "Quasigeoid construction and normal-height systems as independent subjects", "Ocean circulation, sea-surface forecasting, and tidal-datum determination", "Terrain elevation models and land-surface morphology", "Survey instrument operation and national vertical-datum administration" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "A geoid is selected by constant gravity potential W = W0; constant gravitational acceleration is not its defining test. NGS describes the sea-level relationship in its [geoid definition](https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GEOID/geoid_def.html).", "A reference ellipsoid is a geometric reference surface; geoid undulation describes the geoid's signed separation from a specified ellipsoid.", "A quasigeoid is a different height reference surface and is not generally equipotential; its height anomaly must not be silently substituted for geoid undulation. See [NGS modeling calculations](https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/research/geopotential-datums/modeling-calculations.shtml).", "Observed mean sea level helps motivate geoid selection but is not an exact, universally interchangeable realization of the geoid.", "A product called a geoid model can incorporate fitting to an existing vertical datum and therefore need not represent a pure equipotential surface. See [NGS technical notes](https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GEOID/tech2.html)." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Reference potential", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "W0 in m²/s², with adopting authority and convention", "why_it_matters": "Identifies which member of the family of equipotential surfaces is intended." }, { "name": "Realization class", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Gravimetric geoid approximation; hybrid datum-fitted surface; insufficiently documented", "why_it_matters": "Determines whether values approximate a physical equipotential surface or support a particular datum conversion." }, { "name": "Geoid undulation", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "N in metres at a specified position, relative to a named ellipsoid and sign convention", "why_it_matters": "Provides the separation needed for compatible ellipsoidal-to-orthometric height conversion." }, { "name": "Geodetic reference compatibility", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Named ellipsoid, terrestrial reference frame, coordinate epoch, and target height datum", "why_it_matters": "Prevents combining coordinates and corrections that refer to different systems." }, { "name": "Permanent-tide convention", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Mean-tide; zero-tide; tide-free; unspecified", "why_it_matters": "Unreconciled tidal conventions can introduce systematic discrepancies." }, { "name": "Spatial support", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Coverage boundary and grid spacing or spherical-harmonic degree and order", "why_it_matters": "Describes where the realization can be evaluated and the spatial detail represented." }, { "name": "Temporal applicability", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Static at documented epoch; time-dependent with documented corrections; unspecified", "why_it_matters": "Determines whether temporal changes need treatment for the intended use." }, { "name": "Validation uncertainty", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Metres, with statistic, confidence interpretation, region, and validation method", "why_it_matters": "Supports a defensible decision about whether the realization meets a height-accuracy requirement." } ], "affordances": [ "Classify a claimed geoid surface and identify its defining conventions.", "Evaluate geoid undulation within documented coverage using a specified realization.", "Convert compatible ellipsoidal heights to orthometric heights with an explicit error budget.", "Compare realizations after reconciling reference systems and conventions.", "Flag locations or applications where validation, coverage, or metadata are inadequate." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "equipotential-identity", "name": "Equipotential identity", "description": "Establishes which geoid is intended and how its sea-level interpretation is justified.", "rationale": "An agent must distinguish a defined physical reference surface from an ambiguous use of the word geoid.", "layers": [ { "id": "potential-selection", "name": "Potential selection", "description": "Records the criterion and authority selecting the reference surface.", "findings": [ { "id": "reference-potential-choice", "name": "Reference potential choice", "description": "Record W0, its provenance, and whether the definition selects it conventionally or through a stated sea-level fit; do not assume all geoid definitions choose the same surface.", "questions": [ { "text": "What W0 and definition identify this surface, and who adopted them?", "kind": "definition", "id": "reference-potential-choice-q01" }, { "text": "Which source explains how the potential value was selected?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "reference-potential-choice-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "sea-level-interpretation", "name": "Sea-level interpretation", "description": "Separates the reference surface from observed ocean and tidal surfaces.", "findings": [ { "id": "mean-sea-level-relationship", "name": "Mean sea-level relationship", "description": "Identify whether mean sea level is used as a conceptual motivation, observational fitting target, or datum reference; NGS gives a least-squares global sea-level fit as its stated definition. See [NGS geoid definition](https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GEOID/geoid_def.html).", "questions": [ { "text": "What role does mean sea level play in this definition or realization?", "kind": "definition", "id": "mean-sea-level-relationship-q01" }, { "text": "If sea-level observations were used, what averaging period and treatment of oceanographic departures were documented?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "mean-sea-level-relationship-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "height-surface-boundaries", "name": "Height surface boundaries", "description": "Identifies neighboring reference surfaces and the height quantities they support.", "rationale": "Confusing an ellipsoid, geoid, quasigeoid, or datum correction can produce a plausible but incorrect elevation.", "layers": [ { "id": "ellipsoid-separation", "name": "Ellipsoid separation", "description": "Defines the geometric reference for geoid undulation.", "findings": [ { "id": "undulation-reference", "name": "Undulation reference", "description": "A reported N requires a named ellipsoid, position convention, and sign; an undulation value alone does not identify an absolute height reference.", "questions": [ { "text": "Relative to which ellipsoid and coordinates is N evaluated?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "undulation-reference-q01" }, { "text": "How is positive separation defined, and is that convention preserved in the consuming software?", "kind": "action", "id": "undulation-reference-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "quasigeoid-and-datum-separation", "name": "Quasigeoid and datum separation", "description": "Distinguishes physical geoid approximations from other height correction surfaces.", "findings": [ { "id": "correction-surface-classification", "name": "Correction surface classification", "description": "Determine whether supplied values are geoid undulations, quasigeoid height anomalies, or hybrid datum corrections; hybrid fitting can break the equipotential interpretation. See [NGS technical notes](https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GEOID/tech2.html).", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the product return geoid undulation, height anomaly, or a correction fitted to a named vertical datum?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "correction-surface-classification-q01" }, { "text": "What documentation establishes the corresponding orthometric or normal height interpretation?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "correction-surface-classification-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "realization-evidence", "name": "Realization evidence", "description": "Records how a numerical approximation was constructed and where its values are supported.", "rationale": "The ideal surface cannot be assessed through a product name or grid resolution alone.", "layers": [ { "id": "gravity-and-fitting-inputs", "name": "Gravity and fitting inputs", "description": "Traces the observations and assumptions behind the realization.", "findings": [ { "id": "construction-lineage", "name": "Construction lineage", "description": "Record gravity observations, satellite contributions, terrain treatment, and any GNSS/leveling fit actually documented for the selected release.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which observations and construction methods support this release?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "construction-lineage-q01" }, { "text": "Which terrain, density, or datum-fitting assumptions materially affect its values?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "construction-lineage-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "numerical-support", "name": "Numerical support", "description": "Makes the evaluation domain and representation explicit.", "findings": [ { "id": "coverage-and-evaluation", "name": "Coverage and evaluation", "description": "Record geographic masks, grid or harmonic representation, interpolation rules, and missing-data behavior; numerical spacing does not establish accuracy.", "questions": [ { "text": "Where is evaluation supported, including coastlines, islands, and grid edges?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "coverage-and-evaluation-q01" }, { "text": "Which representation and evaluation method must an agent use to reproduce a value?", "kind": "action", "id": "coverage-and-evaluation-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "reference-conventions", "name": "Reference conventions", "description": "Captures the reference-system and temporal conditions needed to combine geoid values with coordinates.", "rationale": "Convention mismatches can masquerade as geoid error or real elevation change.", "layers": [ { "id": "frame-and-tide-alignment", "name": "Frame and tide alignment", "description": "Checks compatibility of the realization, input coordinates, and desired heights.", "findings": [ { "id": "compatibility-contract", "name": "Compatibility contract", "description": "Record the supported frame, ellipsoid, tide convention, and output datum. Product compatibility can be highly specific, as illustrated by [GEOID18 technical details](https://ngs.noaa.gov/GEOID/GEOID18/geoid18_tech_details.shtml).", "questions": [ { "text": "Which frame, ellipsoid, tide convention, and height datum does this realization support?", "kind": "definition", "id": "compatibility-contract-q01" }, { "text": "What documented transformations are required before these input coordinates are compatible?", "kind": "action", "id": "compatibility-contract-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "epoch-and-release", "name": "Epoch and release", "description": "Separates software release identity from the physical epoch represented.", "findings": [ { "id": "temporal-reference", "name": "Temporal reference", "description": "Record release identifier, reference epoch, and any prescribed temporal corrections; publication date alone does not define temporal applicability.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which epoch does the realization represent, and what temporal behavior is documented?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "temporal-reference-q01" }, { "text": "Does the intended observation epoch require a correction or a different realization?", "kind": "action", "id": "temporal-reference-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "height-use-and-confidence", "name": "Height use and confidence", "description": "Connects geoid evaluation to justified height conversion and validation.", "rationale": "An agent needs evidence that the resulting height is meaningful and accurate enough for its intended use.", "layers": [ { "id": "orthometric-conversion", "name": "Orthometric conversion", "description": "Controls how ellipsoidal height and geoid undulation produce an orthometric-height estimate.", "findings": [ { "id": "conversion-conditions", "name": "Conversion conditions", "description": "Use H ≈ h − N only with compatible quantities and an accuracy-appropriate treatment of geometry and datum effects; NGS illustrates this relation in its [geoid survey overview](https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GEOID/GSVS14/GSVS14SurveyOverview.pdf).", "questions": [ { "text": "Are h, N, and the intended H compatible in frame, datum, tide convention, and epoch?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "conversion-conditions-q01" }, { "text": "What conversion method and propagated uncertainty meet the application's height tolerance?", "kind": "action", "id": "conversion-conditions-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "independent-validation", "name": "Independent validation", "description": "Assesses local performance and separates validation evidence from calibration evidence.", "findings": [ { "id": "regional-error-evidence", "name": "Regional error evidence", "description": "Record independent checks, regional residuals, systematic offsets, and correlated errors; distinguish uncertainty in the realization from uncertainty in coordinates and comparison heights.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which checks are independent of the observations used to construct or fit the realization?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "regional-error-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "What local bias, dispersion, and spatial correlation are supported by those checks?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "regional-error-evidence-q02" }, { "text": "Does the combined uncertainty permit the intended use, or require another reference or additional surveying?", "kind": "action", "id": "regional-error-evidence-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": [ "The listed kinds distinguish modelling approaches, not separate fundamental types of equipotential surface.", "Precise applications must specify the reference potential, reference ellipsoid and permanent-tide convention.", "This is recalled knowledge; no sources were consulted, and numerical extrema should be checked against the selected model." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of geoid 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": [ "Gravimetric geoid models", "Hybrid geoid models fitted to terrestrial height control" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of geoid 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": [ "Converting satellite-derived ellipsoidal heights into approximate orthometric heights.", "Providing a reference surface for physical height systems used in surveying and mapping.", "Separating ocean surface topography from the gravity reference surface in oceanography.", "Studying Earth's gravity field and internal mass distribution." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of geoid 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": "Geoid undulation, the separation of the geoid from a specified reference ellipsoid", "typical_range": "Approximately −110 to +90 globally relative to commonly used geocentric reference ellipsoids; exact extrema depend on the model and ellipsoid.", "unit": "m" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of geoid 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": [ "Treating observed mean sea level as exactly coincident with the geoid despite currents, atmospheric pressure and other oceanographic effects.", "Mixing ellipsoidal and orthometric heights, causing potentially large elevation errors.", "Using a geoid model with incompatible reference-frame, vertical-datum or permanent-tide conventions.", "Confusing geoid undulation with quasigeoid height anomaly.", "Assuming a regional model retains its accuracy outside its coverage or in areas with sparse gravity observations." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of geoid 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": [ "National vertical datums can have different offsets from a common global geoid reference.", "Some countries use orthometric heights associated with the geoid; others use normal heights associated with the quasigeoid.", "Regional models differ in resolution and accuracy because gravity observations and terrestrial height control vary geographically." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of geoid 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": "Reference ellipsoid", "difference": "A smooth mathematical surface defined geometrically; the geoid is defined by gravity potential and has irregular departures from that ellipsoid." }, { "name": "Mean sea surface", "difference": "An average of the actual ocean surface, which can depart from the geoid because of ocean dynamics and other effects." }, { "name": "Quasigeoid", "difference": "A reference surface associated with normal heights that is generally not an equipotential surface." }, { "name": "Topographic surface", "difference": "The physical land surface includes mountains and valleys; the geoid passes beneath or above terrain independently of that terrain's elevation." }, { "name": "Geoid model", "difference": "A computed representation or estimate of the geoid, rather than the physical reference surface itself." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of geoid this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which defining authority and W0 convention should the completed publication adopt or explicitly compare?", "Which representative global and regional realizations should be researched to establish practical recognition criteria?", "What documented criteria reliably distinguish physical geoid approximations from hybrid products marketed as geoid models?", "For which applications must time dependence and permanent-tide differences be modeled explicitly?", "What independent regional validation evidence supports usable uncertainty thresholds, especially where terrestrial gravity coverage is sparse?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 17, "questions": 28 } }, "draft": { "generator": "vr.draft.v3", "status": "draft-generated", "researched": false, "archetype": "abstract concept", "method": "Written from the archetype playbook - what this kind of thing needs beyond identity and provenance - and from the structure that recurred across 6,333 models already researched by two engines. Applied to this entry by rule. No source was read for this thing and no claim here is researched. This entry carries no facets of its own, so they were inferred from its domain - a guess about a whole domain applied to one thing.", "facetsInferred": true, "nextPass": "A researcher replaces this draft with a sourced specification. Treat every sentence below as a proposal to argue with.", "purpose": "Give an agent a durable, checkable way to recognise a geoid, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to identify a geoid realization, assess its suitability as a height reference, and apply it only with compatible geodetic conventions and documented uncertainty.", "characteristics": { "substance": "abstract", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "observed and measured" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Described in 69 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 geoid, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "an abstraction with no physical instance", "physicalCharacter": [ "Does nothing on its own; everything it does, something else did to it.", "These come from the domain this entry sits in rather than from the entry itself, so treat them as a first guess about the whole domain applied to one thing." ], "whatCanBeDoneWithIt": [ "observe it, measure it, record its state" ], "howItIsRecognised": [ "Nothing to see. What is recognised is an instance of it, and which instances count is exactly what is argued about." ], "relatedModels": [], "standing": "Described in 69 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 geoid from another, and a geoid 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 geoid, 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 geoid, 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 geoid 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 geoid, 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 geoid, 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 geoid 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 geoid 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 geoid, 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 geoid, 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 geoid 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 geoid from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a geoid, 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 geoid, 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 geoid 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 geoid 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 geoid between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a geoid, 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 geoid, 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 geoid 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 geoid, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a geoid 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 geoid, 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 geoid, 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 geoid is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "definitions-in-contest", "name": "Definitions and who holds them", "description": "What geoid is taken to mean, and by whom.", "rationale": "When a field disagrees about a concept, the disagreement is the content. A model that picks one definition silently destroys the information.", "layers": [ { "id": "competing-definitions", "name": "Competing definitions", "description": "The main readings and the traditions behind them.", "findings": [ { "id": "definition-map", "name": "Definitions and their holders", "description": "Each definition with the school or body that holds it.", "questions": [ { "id": "definition-map-q01", "text": "Which definitions of geoid are in use, and which tradition or body holds each?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "definition-map-q02", "text": "What turns on the difference between them in practice?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "operationalisation", "name": "Operationalisation", "description": "How it is measured or applied when it has to be.", "findings": [ { "id": "operational-record", "name": "Measures and proxies", "description": "Instruments and indicators used to stand in for it.", "questions": [ { "id": "operational-record-q01", "text": "How is geoid operationalised or measured in practice, and by what instrument?", "kind": "measurement" }, { "id": "operational-record-q02", "text": "What does that operationalisation leave out, and when does that matter?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "instances-and-use", "name": "Instances, use and consequence", "description": "What counts as an instance of geoid and what follows from calling something that.", "rationale": "Applying a concept is an act with consequences, so a model must say what the label licenses and what it does not.", "layers": [ { "id": "instances", "name": "What counts as an instance", "description": "Clear cases, borderline cases and non-cases.", "findings": [ { "id": "instance-tests", "name": "Tests for an instance", "description": "What would settle whether something falls under it.", "questions": [ { "id": "instance-tests-q01", "text": "What would settle whether something is an instance of geoid?", "kind": "boundary" }, { "id": "instance-tests-q02", "text": "Which borderline cases are argued about, and on what grounds?", "kind": "definition" } ] } ] }, { "id": "consequence", "name": "Consequence of application", "description": "Rights, duties or decisions that follow from the label.", "findings": [ { "id": "consequence-record", "name": "What the label licenses", "description": "What an agent may do once something is classified this way.", "questions": [ { "id": "consequence-record-q01", "text": "What follows practically once something is treated as geoid?", "kind": "action" }, { "id": "consequence-record-q02", "text": "What must an agent not infer from the label alone?", "kind": "action" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "provenance-and-evidence", "name": "Provenance, evidence and time", "description": "Where every claim about a geoid 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 geoid and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a geoid, 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 geoid, 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 geoid 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 geoid is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a geoid, 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 geoid, 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 geoid is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 10, "findings": 12, "questions": 32 } } } }