{ "model": { "rank": 4525, "code": "thing-q200481", "model_id": "vr.tr.blasphemy", "name": "blasphemy", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise, contextualise and assess claims of blasphemy without treating a community's judgement of sacred offence as an objective property of an expression.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Information and virtual systems", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "INF", "domain": "INF.MED", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q200481/", "tier": 2, "score": 74, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [ "takdhib", "Quran desecration" ], "aliasCount": 2, "merged": 2, "knownIn": 74, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": "vr.tr.blasphemy", "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q200481", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q200481", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T20:25:44Z", "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: 01a087d8-236d-7943-a5e9-75cd3878489b\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: blasphemy\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: INF.MED\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 005: 1001 regis", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 60.5, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a087d8-2377-7683-a2d8-0977d626daed\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: blasphemy\nRegistry id: vr.tr.blasphemy\nPlane / domain: INF / INF.MED\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\nCont" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q200481", "registryId": "vr.tr.blasphemy", "name": "blasphemy", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "INF.MED" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q200481/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.blasphemy", "name": "blasphemy", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise, contextualise and assess claims of blasphemy without treating a community's judgement of sacred offence as an objective property of an expression.", "definition": "Blasphemy is expression or conduct regarded within a religious tradition or community as insulting, showing contempt for, or treating irreverently its deity, sacred persons, objects, or beliefs.", "scope_statement": "This model owns blasphemy as a context-dependent classification of expression or expressive conduct concerning something held sacred, including the expression, sacred referent, invoked norm, attribution and contested assessment; it does not treat blasphemy as a creative genre.", "in_scope": [ "Expressions and expressive acts alleged or judged to dishonour something held sacred", "Sacred referents and the traditions or communities that recognise them", "Specific religious norms invoked to classify an expression as blasphemous", "Accusations, interpretations, disputes and revisions of that classification", "Context needed to assess intent, quotation, translation and reception", "Reported responses and applicable handling constraints" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Religious doctrines and sacred entities considered independently of a blasphemy assessment", "Creative works, editions and physical carriers as independently managed objects", "Heresy, apostasy and unbelief without a distinct allegation of sacred offence", "Profanity or interpersonal insult without an identified sacred referent", "Complete legal proceedings, statutory models and criminal case management", "Violence, persecution and discrimination as independently modelled events" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "A blasphemy assessment must identify what is held sacred and by whom; general offensiveness alone does not establish the classification.", "The assessment concerns a perceived treatment of the sacred, whereas heresy concerns doctrinal departure and apostasy concerns leaving a faith; any overlap must be recorded separately.", "Criticism, satire, quotation and scholarship require an attributed assessment rather than automatic classification as blasphemy.", "An accusation, an internal religious judgement and a legal determination are distinct records that may disagree.", "A work or act can receive different assessments across communities, periods and contexts, so classification must remain attached to its assessor and setting." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Sacred referent", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Identified deity, person, text, symbol, ritual, place, object or other referent held sacred", "why_it_matters": "Identifies the target of the alleged offence without assuming universal sacred status." }, { "name": "Sacred-status attribution", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Community, tradition or interpreter asserting the referent's sacred status", "why_it_matters": "Makes the normative perspective explicit." }, { "name": "Expression mode", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Speech, writing, image, performance, gesture, treatment of an object, mixed or unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Determines what evidence and contextual detail an assessment requires." }, { "name": "Alleged form of offence", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Attributed insult, mockery, irreverence, profanation, prohibited representation, other specified form or unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Records the claimant's grounds without assuming that every tradition recognises the same offences." }, { "name": "Assessment standing", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Alleged, affirmed by a named assessor, disputed, rejected by a named assessor, withdrawn or unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Prevents an allegation from silently becoming an established judgement." }, { "name": "Invoked norm", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Identified teaching, interpretive rule, customary expectation, institutional policy or legal provision, with source and temporal context", "why_it_matters": "Allows the agent to inspect the grounds and limits of each assessment." }, { "name": "Intent account", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Creator-stated, claimant-attributed, inferred with evidence, disputed or unknown", "why_it_matters": "Separates evidence of intention from assumptions based on audience reaction." }, { "name": "Assessment context", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Time, location, audience, language, circulation setting and jurisdiction where relevant", "why_it_matters": "Constrains the reach of a classification and identifies when reassessment is needed." } ], "affordances": [ "Record an allegation together with its sacred referent, claimant and stated grounds.", "Compare assessments of the same expression across named communities and contexts.", "Trace disputed wording, imagery or conduct to its original setting and available evidence.", "Distinguish blasphemy allegations from related classifications such as heresy, profanity or criticism.", "Identify missing evidence and route consequential or contested assessments for appropriate review.", "Prepare an attributed summary with contextual quotation and handling choices suited to its audience." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "sacred-referent-and-norm", "name": "Sacred referent and norm", "description": "Establishes what is considered sacred and the specific grounds invoked for alleging offence.", "rationale": "Blasphemy cannot be recognised through offensive wording alone; its classification depends on a sacred referent and an attributed normative perspective.", "layers": [ { "id": "sacred-status", "name": "Sacred status", "description": "Identifies the referent and the people or institutions attributing sacred significance to it.", "findings": [ { "id": "referent-and-recognising-community", "name": "Referent and recognising community", "description": "Record the alleged target and whose understanding of its sacred status is relevant.", "questions": [ { "text": "What exactly is alleged to have been dishonoured, and which community or interpreter holds it sacred?", "kind": "definition", "id": "referent-and-recognising-community-q01" }, { "text": "What source supports this attribution of sacred status, including any disagreement within the named community?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "referent-and-recognising-community-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "offence-criteria", "name": "Offence criteria", "description": "Connects the alleged treatment of the referent to a particular rule or interpretation.", "findings": [ { "id": "invoked-religious-boundary", "name": "Invoked religious boundary", "description": "Record the claimed threshold between permissible treatment of the sacred and blasphemous treatment.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which rule or interpretation is invoked, and what feature of the expression allegedly crosses its boundary?", "kind": "definition", "id": "invoked-religious-boundary-q01" }, { "text": "Does the invoked interpretation distinguish insult, denial, depiction, irreverence and profanation, or group them together?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "invoked-religious-boundary-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "expression-and-context", "name": "Expression and context", "description": "Identifies the relevant words, images or conduct and reconstructs the circumstances needed to interpret them.", "rationale": "An isolated quotation, altered image or unexplained act may support a different assessment from its complete context.", "layers": [ { "id": "expression-evidence", "name": "Expression evidence", "description": "Anchors the allegation to an identifiable expression or occurrence.", "findings": [ { "id": "original-and-circulated-form", "name": "Original and circulated form", "description": "Distinguish the original expression from excerpts, translations, edits and reports used in the allegation.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which exact passage, image feature, gesture or treatment of an object is alleged to constitute blasphemy?", "kind": "definition", "id": "original-and-circulated-form-q01" }, { "text": "Is the available evidence original, translated, edited, excerpted or second-hand, and how can its origin be checked?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "original-and-circulated-form-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "interpretive-setting", "name": "Interpretive setting", "description": "Records communicative purpose, audience and circumstances without treating inferred intent as established.", "findings": [ { "id": "use-mention-and-intent", "name": "Use, mention and intent", "description": "Determine whether the disputed material is asserted, quoted, dramatised, criticised or otherwise presented, and attribute any account of intention.", "questions": [ { "text": "Is the speaker or creator endorsing the disputed content, quoting another person, depicting a fictional voice or using another identifiable framing?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "use-mention-and-intent-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence supports the stated or attributed intention, and what remains unknown or disputed?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "use-mention-and-intent-q02" }, { "text": "How did the audience, venue or circulation context differ between the original expression and the encounter that prompted the allegation?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "use-mention-and-intent-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "attributed-and-contested-assessment", "name": "Attributed and contested assessment", "description": "Maintains separate, attributable judgements and the boundaries between blasphemy and neighbouring classifications.", "rationale": "An agent must preserve disagreement and distinguish the existence of an accusation from acceptance of its grounds.", "layers": [ { "id": "claim-and-authority", "name": "Claim and authority", "description": "Identifies who made each assessment, their claimed role and the standing of their judgement.", "findings": [ { "id": "assessment-owner-and-standing", "name": "Assessment owner and standing", "description": "Attach each classification to its assessor, evidence, date and stated scope of authority.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who called the expression blasphemous, when, and in what capacity?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "assessment-owner-and-standing-q01" }, { "text": "Is this a personal reaction, religious interpretation, institutional decision or legal determination, and who contests its authority or conclusion?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "assessment-owner-and-standing-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "classification-boundaries", "name": "Classification boundaries", "description": "Tests alternative descriptions and records disagreements about whether blasphemy is the relevant category.", "findings": [ { "id": "neighbouring-categories-and-disagreement", "name": "Neighbouring categories and disagreement", "description": "Separate sacred-offence claims from doctrinal dissent, religious departure, general profanity and attacks on people.", "questions": [ { "text": "What makes this specifically an allegation of offence against the sacred rather than solely heresy, apostasy, profanity or insult to a person?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "neighbouring-categories-and-disagreement-q01" }, { "text": "Which alternative readings, including criticism, satire or scholarship, have been offered, and by whom?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "neighbouring-categories-and-disagreement-q02" }, { "text": "What additional evidence would justify revising, rejecting or narrowing the recorded classification?", "kind": "action", "id": "neighbouring-categories-and-disagreement-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "responses-and-agent-handling", "name": "Responses and agent handling", "description": "Records substantiated responses to an allegation and determines context-appropriate handling of the material.", "rationale": "An agent needs to distinguish reported consequences, institutional restrictions and audience preferences before deciding how to describe or circulate contested material.", "layers": [ { "id": "response-and-applicability", "name": "Response and applicability", "description": "Links the allegation to documented reactions and any specifically applicable rules.", "findings": [ { "id": "documented-consequences-and-rules", "name": "Documented consequences and rules", "description": "Record responses with their evidential standing and verify the scope of any rule invoked to constrain action.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which responses are documented, such as rebuttal, apology, removal, exclusion or proceedings, and which are only threatened or reported?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "documented-consequences-and-rules-q01" }, { "text": "If a legal provision or institutional policy is invoked, what authoritative source establishes its applicable date, setting and status?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "documented-consequences-and-rules-q02" }, { "text": "Does the evidence connect the response to the expression itself, the accusation, its circulation or another event?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "documented-consequences-and-rules-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "representation-and-review", "name": "Representation and review", "description": "Supports accurate description, proportionate reproduction and review of consequential assessments.", "findings": [ { "id": "contextualised-agent-action", "name": "Contextualised agent action", "description": "Choose how to present the disputed material while preserving attribution, interpretive context and relevant audience requirements.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the task require reproducing the disputed material, or would an attributed description or limited excerpt meet the need?", "kind": "action", "id": "contextualised-agent-action-q01" }, { "text": "What audience preferences, applicable constraints and unresolved translation or interpretation issues should inform presentation or specialist review?", "kind": "action", "id": "contextualised-agent-action-q02" }, { "text": "How will the output make clear whose judgement is being reported and whether that judgement is disputed?", "kind": "action", "id": "contextualised-agent-action-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 religious and social concept, not a particular legal offense, titled work, or medium.", "The supplied domain and batch classification should be checked: blasphemy can characterize expression or conduct but is not itself a creative form.", "This is recall only; tradition-specific definitions and jurisdiction-specific rules require research." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of blasphemy 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": [ "Spoken blasphemy", "Written blasphemy", "Visual representations regarded as blasphemous", "Gestures or performances regarded as blasphemous" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of blasphemy 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": [ "Religious teaching and debate about acceptable treatment of the sacred", "Classification of allegedly offensive speech, writing, images, or performances", "Historical study of religious authority, censorship, and dissent", "Analysis of conflicts involving artistic expression and religious sensibilities" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of blasphemy 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": [ "Presenting a community's judgment of blasphemy as an intrinsic property of an expression", "Conflating criticism of religious ideas with hostility toward religious people", "Using allegations to suppress dissent or target religious minorities", "Loss of context when translating, quoting, or circulating allegedly blasphemous material", "Threats, exclusion, or violence against people accused of blasphemy" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of blasphemy 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": [ "Traditions and communities differ over what is sacred and what treatment constitutes blasphemy.", "An expression regarded as blasphemous by one community may be ordinary religious teaching or legitimate criticism in another.", "Religious judgments, social responses, and legal classifications need separate examination in each jurisdiction and historical period." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of blasphemy 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": "sacrilege", "difference": "Sacrilege concerns violation or profanation of sacred things, places, or rites; blasphemy emphasizes insult or contempt, although usage overlaps." }, { "name": "heresy", "difference": "Heresy concerns doctrinal deviation from an authoritative religious teaching; it need not involve insult or irreverence." }, { "name": "apostasy", "difference": "Apostasy is abandonment or renunciation of a religion; it does not inherently involve contemptuous expression." }, { "name": "profanity", "difference": "Profanity includes taboo or vulgar language that need not target anything sacred." }, { "name": "religious satire", "difference": "Religious satire uses humor or ridicule concerning religion; whether it is blasphemous depends on a religious or social judgment." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of blasphemy this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Does the registry intend blasphemy to cover expressive conduct involving sacred objects and places, or should some occurrences link primarily to a separate desecration model?", "Which tradition-specific terms can be mapped to blasphemy without erasing differences in their referents, criteria and authority structures?", "How should conflicting assessments within the same religious community be represented when no single recognised adjudicator exists?", "Which researched traditions make intention, publicity, speaker affiliation or audience understanding relevant to classification, and in what ways?", "Which existing Vercy models cover religious offence, expression, doctrine and legal proceedings, and where should this entry reuse their concepts?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 9, "findings": 14, "questions": 26 } }, "draft": { "generator": "vr.draft.v3", "status": "draft-generated", "researched": false, "archetype": "work, medium or creative form", "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 blasphemy, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to recognise, contextualise and assess claims of blasphemy without treating a community's judgement of sacred offence as an objective property of an expression.", "characteristics": { "substance": "information", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "read and interpreted", "observed and measured" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Names folded into this entry, which a task may need to split apart again: takdhib, Quran desecration.", "2 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it.", "Described in 74 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 blasphemy, 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", "observe it, measure it, record its state" ], "howItIsRecognised": [ "What is seen is a copy or a performance, not the work. Recognising the work means recognising the content through whatever is carrying it." ], "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": [ "takdhib", "Quran desecration" ] } ], "standing": "Described in 74 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is. 2 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 blasphemy from another, and a blasphemy 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 blasphemy, 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 blasphemy, 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 blasphemy 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 blasphemy, 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 blasphemy, 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 blasphemy 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 blasphemy 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 blasphemy, 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 blasphemy, 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 blasphemy 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 blasphemy from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a blasphemy, 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 blasphemy, 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 blasphemy 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 blasphemy 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 blasphemy between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a blasphemy, 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 blasphemy, 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 blasphemy 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 blasphemy, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a blasphemy 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 blasphemy, 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 blasphemy, 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 blasphemy 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 blasphemy 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 blasphemy contains and in what form it is held.", "questions": [ { "id": "content-and-format-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the content of a blasphemy, 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 blasphemy, 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 blasphemy 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 blasphemy and the period it survives.", "questions": [ { "id": "access-rules-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes access to a blasphemy, 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 blasphemy, 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 blasphemy is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "work-and-manifestation", "name": "Work, version and copy", "description": "Which level of blasphemy a statement is about.", "rationale": "The work, the edition, the file and the copy in hand are four things; rights and content attach to different ones.", "layers": [ { "id": "levels", "name": "Levels of the thing", "description": "Work, expression, manifestation and item, in plain terms.", "findings": [ { "id": "level-rules", "name": "What belongs at each level", "description": "Which facts hold for the work and which only for one copy.", "questions": [ { "id": "level-rules-q01", "text": "For blasphemy, which facts belong to the work itself, which to a version, and which to a single copy?", "kind": "boundary" }, { "id": "level-rules-q02", "text": "What identifier exists at each level, and which one is being cited?", "kind": "definition" } ] } ] }, { "id": "versions", "name": "Versions, editions and variants", "description": "How versions differ and which is canonical to whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "version-record", "name": "Versions and canonicity", "description": "Differences that matter and who calls one authoritative.", "questions": [ { "id": "version-record-q01", "text": "Which versions or editions of blasphemy exist, and how do they differ substantively?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "version-record-q02", "text": "Who treats which version as authoritative, and for what purpose?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "authorship-and-rights", "name": "Authorship, rights and permitted use", "description": "Who made blasphemy and what may be done with it.", "rationale": "Rights are jurisdictional, time-limited and attached to a level, and an agent that ignores that will copy what it may not.", "layers": [ { "id": "authorship", "name": "Authorship and contribution", "description": "Who contributed what, and in what capacity.", "findings": [ { "id": "contribution-record", "name": "Contributors and roles", "description": "The people and bodies behind it, with their roles.", "questions": [ { "id": "contribution-record-q01", "text": "Who authored or contributed to blasphemy, in what roles, and how is that attested?", "kind": "provenance" }, { "id": "contribution-record-q02", "text": "Where authorship is disputed or anonymous, what is recorded instead?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "rights", "name": "Rights and permissions", "description": "Which rights subsist, where, until when, and what they permit.", "findings": [ { "id": "rights-record", "name": "Rights, term and permitted acts", "description": "The regime in force and what it allows.", "questions": [ { "id": "rights-record-q01", "text": "What rights subsist in blasphemy, in which jurisdictions, and until when?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "rights-record-q02", "text": "Which acts are permitted without further permission, and which must an agent refuse?", "kind": "action" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "provenance-and-evidence", "name": "Provenance, evidence and time", "description": "Where every claim about a blasphemy 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 blasphemy and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a blasphemy, 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 blasphemy, 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 blasphemy 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 blasphemy is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a blasphemy, 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 blasphemy, 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 blasphemy 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 } } } }