{ "model": { "rank": 4243, "code": "thing-q41966", "model_id": "vr.tr.metonymy", "name": "metonymy", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise candidate metonymic uses, record how an associated expression provides access to an intended referent or meaning, and choose interpretations or revisions while preserving uncertainty.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Activities and processes", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "ACT", "domain": "ACT.ACT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q41966/", "tier": 2, "score": 77, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [ "synecdoche" ], "aliasCount": 1, "merged": 1, "knownIn": 77, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q41966", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q41966", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T19:47:29Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 21.7, "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: 01a087b5-161c-7c71-83fb-424690113c00\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: metonymy\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: ACT.ACT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 695 things:\n# Batch 004: 1001 registe", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 62.5, "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: 01a087b5-160f-7143-8b6f-ec0b12267d2f\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: metonymy\nRegistry id: vr.tr.metonymy\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\nContex" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q41966", "registryId": "vr.tr.metonymy", "name": "metonymy", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q41966/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.metonymy", "name": "metonymy", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise candidate metonymic uses, record how an associated expression provides access to an intended referent or meaning, and choose interpretations or revisions while preserving uncertainty.", "definition": "Metonymy is a linguistic and conceptual process in which an expression or concept provides access to an associated referent or concept through a contextually salient relation, commonly analysed as contiguity within a conceptual domain.", "scope_statement": "This model owns metonymy as a meaning-making operation and its situated instances, including competing rhetorical, referential, and cognitive accounts; it distinguishes the operation from the expressions, entities, and communicative acts through which it occurs.", "in_scope": [ "Competing definitions of metonymy and the criteria each account uses to identify instances", "The expression used, its contextually available meaning, and the intended referent or meaning", "Associations that license metonymic access, such as institution through place or work through creator", "Evidence for recognising, interpreting, and disputing candidate instances", "Conventionality, discourse function, ambiguity, and consequences of metonymic wording" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Metaphor as an independent operation based on analogy or resemblance", "General theories of reference, polysemy, and pragmatic inference beyond their role in identifying metonymy", "The full ontology or history of institutions, places, people, and objects mentioned", "Whole-work literary interpretation beyond the contribution of a metonymic use", "Synecdoche as a separately registered thing; its relationship to metonymy remains an explicit classification issue" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "A candidate should support an identifiable association between the expressed meaning and the intended target; resemblance alone supports a metaphor analysis more directly.", "In a referential candidate such as 'The White House announced a decision,' record evidence that the target is an administration or its representatives rather than the building.", "A literal mention of an associated object is insufficient: identify what contextual evidence motivates access to another referent or meaning.", "For part-whole cases such as 'additional hands,' record whether the adopted framework includes synecdoche within metonymy or separates it.", "For conventional expressions, distinguish evidence of a metonymic interpretation in the present use from a claim about the expression's historical origin." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Analytical account", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Rhetorical substitution; referential transfer; cognitive access; another attributed account; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Different accounts can classify the same expression differently and require different evidence." }, { "name": "Expressed vehicle", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Link to the exact expression or sign and its contextually relevant starting meaning", "why_it_matters": "Keeps the observable wording separate from the analyst's interpretation." }, { "name": "Interpreted target", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "One or more candidate referents or meanings, each with supporting context", "why_it_matters": "Prevents an inferred target from being treated as explicitly stated." }, { "name": "Association type", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Place-institution; creator-work; producer-product; instrument-activity; part-whole; other specified relation; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Makes the proposed interpretive connection inspectable without treating the list as exhaustive." }, { "name": "Conventionality", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Established in a specified community; locally established in discourse; apparently novel; unknown", "why_it_matters": "Shared usage can affect accessibility, but does not by itself settle the analysis." }, { "name": "Classification status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Candidate; supported under a named account; disputed; rejected under a named account", "why_it_matters": "Separates framework-dependent judgements from universal claims." }, { "name": "Annotation agreement", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Agreement proportion from 0 to 1, with sample, annotators, labels, and protocol recorded", "why_it_matters": "Shows whether a particular recognition procedure yields reproducible decisions." }, { "name": "Discourse function", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Referent identification; compression; emphasis; evaluation; attribution of agency; other evidenced function; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Connects interpretation to what the wording accomplishes in its setting." } ], "affordances": [ "Annotate a candidate with its expression, possible targets, licensing association, and contextual evidence.", "Compare classifications under explicitly named analytical accounts.", "Generate and test explicit paraphrases without assuming that they preserve every rhetorical effect.", "Identify competing literal, metaphorical, metonymic, and mixed readings.", "Revise wording when metonymy obscures responsibility or creates consequential ambiguity.", "Retain unresolved readings and request the context needed to distinguish them." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "definitions-and-boundaries", "name": "Definitions and boundaries", "description": "Records what counts as metonymy under a specified account and where that account draws its boundaries.", "rationale": "A usable model must represent disagreement about the concept rather than silently impose one definition.", "layers": [ { "id": "analytical-commitments", "name": "Analytical commitments", "description": "Identifies the account being applied and its commitments about reference, meaning, and cognition.", "findings": [ { "id": "definition-and-holder", "name": "Definition and holder", "description": "Record an attributed definition and its inclusion criteria; the candidate categories in this draft require research before attribution.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does this account define metonymy as substitution, referential transfer, cognitive access, or another operation?", "kind": "definition", "id": "definition-and-holder-q01" }, { "text": "Which author, school, or annotation guideline states this definition, and where can its criteria be checked?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "definition-and-holder-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "neighbouring-operations", "name": "Neighbouring operations", "description": "Tests boundaries with metaphor, synecdoche, literal reference, and lexical ambiguity.", "findings": [ { "id": "boundary-dependent-classification", "name": "Boundary-dependent classification", "description": "Preserve alternative classifications when an account's treatment of resemblance, part-whole relations, or conventional meanings changes the result.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence favours association-based access over resemblance-based interpretation or a literal reading?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "boundary-dependent-classification-q01" }, { "text": "Does the adopted account include part-whole substitutions as metonymy, and how would another account classify this instance?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "boundary-dependent-classification-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "vehicle-target-association", "name": "Vehicle, target, and association", "description": "Makes the proposed interpretive connection explicit.", "rationale": "Recognising a label is insufficient unless the agent can explain what provides access to what.", "layers": [ { "id": "interpretive-endpoints", "name": "Interpretive endpoints", "description": "Separates the expression from its starting meaning and proposed target.", "findings": [ { "id": "expression-and-target", "name": "Expression and target", "description": "Record the exact vehicle and target candidates without replacing the original wording with an analyst's paraphrase.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which expression supplies the vehicle, and what starting meaning is relevant in this context?", "kind": "definition", "id": "expression-and-target-q01" }, { "text": "What referent or meaning is proposed as the target, and which nearby words support it?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "expression-and-target-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "licensing-connection", "name": "Licensing connection", "description": "Describes the association and interpretive direction invoked in the candidate.", "findings": [ { "id": "association-and-direction", "name": "Association and direction", "description": "Specify the relation used, its direction, and any intermediate steps rather than assuming that association licenses substitution in both directions.", "questions": [ { "text": "What relation connects vehicle and target, and what contextual or shared knowledge makes that relation available?", "kind": "definition", "id": "association-and-direction-q01" }, { "text": "Does the proposed reading require a direct association or a chain of intermediate interpretations?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "association-and-direction-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "recognition-and-evidence", "name": "Recognition and evidence", "description": "Turns an intuitive interpretation into a reviewable, framework-specific judgement.", "rationale": "Metonymy detection needs operational criteria and counterexamples to avoid classifying every contextual inference as metonymic.", "layers": [ { "id": "contextual-diagnostics", "name": "Contextual diagnostics", "description": "Collects evidence from predicates, discourse, and explicit paraphrases.", "findings": [ { "id": "reading-comparison", "name": "Reading comparison", "description": "Compare candidate readings against the same context; a mismatch with a literal reading is evidence to examine, not a sufficient identification rule.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which predicate, discourse continuation, or situational fact supports the target reading over the literal reading?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "reading-comparison-q01" }, { "text": "What explicit target paraphrase can be tested, and what meaning or effect does it fail to preserve?", "kind": "action", "id": "reading-comparison-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "annotation-reproducibility", "name": "Annotation reproducibility", "description": "Records how identification decisions are made and checked in practice.", "findings": [ { "id": "operational-decision-rule", "name": "Operational decision rule", "description": "Specify the annotation unit, decision criteria, uncertainty labels, and disagreement procedure used for a collection of examples.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the protocol label words, phrases, utterances, or interpretations, and what evidence is required for a positive label?", "kind": "definition", "id": "operational-decision-rule-q01" }, { "text": "How often do annotators agree under this protocol, and which boundary cases account for disagreement?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "operational-decision-rule-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "conventionality-and-context", "name": "Conventionality and context", "description": "Records who can recover an interpretation and how that interpretation relates to established usage.", "rationale": "An association familiar to one community may be unavailable to another, and lexical history does not establish a present-day processing mechanism.", "layers": [ { "id": "community-and-discourse", "name": "Community and discourse", "description": "Identifies the knowledge and local circumstances needed to recover the target.", "findings": [ { "id": "audience-accessibility", "name": "Audience accessibility", "description": "Record the audience, shared knowledge, and discourse setup on which the proposed interpretation depends.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which audience is expected to know the association, and what evidence supports that expectation?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "audience-accessibility-q01" }, { "text": "Would removing the preceding discourse or changing the audience leave multiple plausible targets?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "audience-accessibility-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "established-and-novel-uses", "name": "Established and novel uses", "description": "Separates conventional usage, discourse-specific innovation, and historical explanation.", "findings": [ { "id": "conventionality-evidence", "name": "Conventionality evidence", "description": "Assess conventionality using evidence tied to a community and period; keep claims about historical derivation separate from claims about current interpretation.", "questions": [ { "text": "What dictionary, corpus, or usage evidence shows that this target meaning is established in the relevant community?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "conventionality-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "Does the evidence establish a current metonymic operation, an established lexical sense, a historical pathway, or leave these alternatives unresolved?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "conventionality-evidence-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "communicative-effects-and-actions", "name": "Communicative effects and actions", "description": "Connects metonymic interpretation to discourse effects and decisions about retaining or revising wording.", "rationale": "An agent must assess what a metonymic expression does, including whether its compactness hides a consequential distinction.", "layers": [ { "id": "focus-and-agency", "name": "Focus and agency", "description": "Examines what the chosen vehicle foregrounds and which actors or distinctions it leaves implicit.", "findings": [ { "id": "framing-and-responsibility", "name": "Framing and responsibility", "description": "Record evidenced effects of naming a place, institution, product, or other associate instead of an explicit target, without inferring speaker intent from wording alone.", "questions": [ { "text": "What aspect of the target does the vehicle foreground, and what contextual evidence supports that interpretation?", "kind": "definition", "id": "framing-and-responsibility-q01" }, { "text": "Does an expression such as 'the ministry decided' leave unresolved which office or authorised person acted?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "framing-and-responsibility-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "interpretation-and-revision", "name": "Interpretation and revision", "description": "Guides clarification, paraphrase, and preservation of deliberate ambiguity.", "findings": [ { "id": "context-sensitive-intervention", "name": "Context-sensitive intervention", "description": "Choose an intervention according to the communication task, evidential support, and cost of resolving an ambiguous target incorrectly.", "questions": [ { "text": "Should the agent retain the expression, add a gloss, replace it with an explicit target, or ask for clarification?", "kind": "action", "id": "context-sensitive-intervention-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence is needed before replacing an institutional or collective vehicle with a specific actor?", "kind": "action", "id": "context-sensitive-intervention-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": [ "This describes the rhetorical, linguistic, and cognitive sense of metonymy; the supplied domain code alone does not establish a narrower sense.", "Traditional rhetoric emphasises substitution through association, while cognitive approaches emphasise conceptual access; neither formulation exhausts all theoretical accounts.", "The listed kinds are common relation patterns, not a universal taxonomy; the status of synecdoche and the boundary with metaphor require particular attention." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of metonymy 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": [ "Producer for product", "Place for institution", "Container for contents", "Instrument for agent", "Cause for effect or effect for cause", "Part for whole or whole for part, when synecdoche is treated as metonymy" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of metonymy 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": [ "Everyday reference, such as using an author's name for that author's works.", "Political reporting, where a capital city or government building names an administration.", "Literary and rhetorical expression through associated objects, attributes, or actions.", "Advertising and visual communication, where an associated object evokes a product, activity, or institution.", "Natural-language processing research on interpreting expressions whose intended referents differ from their literal place, person, or object readings." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of metonymy 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": [ "Interpretation fails when the audience does not share the association needed to identify the intended referent.", "Institutional metonymy can obscure which individuals made a decision or performed an action.", "Literal interpretation can cause errors in translation, information extraction, and entity linking.", "Annotation becomes inconsistent when studies use different boundaries between metonymy, metaphor, synecdoche, and ordinary contextual reference." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of metonymy 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": [ "Conventional associations depend on local institutions and cultural knowledge; a capital or building name may evoke different referents for different audiences.", "Languages differ in which metonymic expressions are conventional and how those expressions interact with grammar." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of metonymy 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": "metaphor", "difference": "Metaphor is commonly analysed as mapping between distinct conceptual domains, whereas metonymy relies on association within a domain or frame; mixed cases complicate this distinction." }, { "name": "synecdoche", "difference": "Synecdoche specifically involves part-whole or related inclusion relations; some traditions distinguish it from metonymy, while others treat it as a subtype." }, { "name": "polysemy", "difference": "Polysemy is the coexistence of related senses of an expression; metonymy is one process that can motivate those senses and can also occur without an established additional sense." }, { "name": "symbolism", "difference": "Symbolism involves something standing for something else through convention or interpretation; metonymy more specifically requires a salient associative relation between what provides access and what is accessed." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of metonymy this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which reference works and schools should anchor the competing definitions, and how do their inclusion criteria differ?", "How should this registry represent synecdoche cases without prematurely settling whether synecdoche is a subtype of metonymy?", "Which diagnostics reliably distinguish metonymy from established lexical senses, predicate coercion, and ordinary contextual inference?", "What evidence can distinguish an analyst's vehicle-target reconstruction from an operation used by speakers or listeners?", "How far should the model extend to visual and multimodal metonymy, and which verbal diagnostics would need replacement?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 16, "questions": 26 } }, "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 metonymy, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to recognise candidate metonymic uses, record how an associated expression provides access to an intended referent or meaning, and choose interpretations or revisions while preserving uncertainty.", "characteristics": { "substance": "activity", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "observed and measured" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Names folded into this entry, which a task may need to split apart again: synecdoche.", "1 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it.", "Described in 77 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 metonymy, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "something that happens over time", "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": [ { "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": [ "synecdoche" ] } ], "standing": "Described in 77 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 metonymy from another, and a metonymy 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 metonymy, 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 metonymy, 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 metonymy 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 metonymy, 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 metonymy, 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 metonymy 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 metonymy 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 metonymy, 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 metonymy, 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 metonymy 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 metonymy from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a metonymy, 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 metonymy, 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 metonymy 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 metonymy 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 metonymy between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a metonymy, 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 metonymy, 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 metonymy 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 metonymy, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a metonymy 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 metonymy, 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 metonymy, 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 metonymy is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "process-and-outcome", "name": "Process, inputs and outcome", "description": "How a metonymy proceeds, what it needs and what it leaves behind.", "rationale": "An activity is known by its steps and its results, and both have to be recordable while it is still running.", "layers": [ { "id": "steps-and-sequence", "name": "Steps and sequence", "description": "The steps of a metonymy, their order and what may run in parallel.", "findings": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions", "name": "Steps, preconditions and completion", "description": "What has to be true before each step of a metonymy and what marks it done.", "questions": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a step of a metonymy, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about a step of a metonymy, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once a step of a metonymy is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "inputs-and-results", "name": "Inputs, resources and results", "description": "What a metonymy consumes and what it produces.", "findings": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs", "name": "Inputs, outputs and side effects", "description": "The resources a metonymy takes and the results it leaves, wanted or not.", "questions": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the inputs and results of a metonymy, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "inputs-and-outputs-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the inputs and results of a metonymy, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "inputs-and-outputs-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the inputs and results of a metonymy 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 metonymy 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 metonymy 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 metonymy 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 metonymy 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 metonymy?", "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 metonymy?", "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 metonymy 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 metonymy and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a metonymy, 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 metonymy, 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 metonymy 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 metonymy is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a metonymy, 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 metonymy, 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 metonymy 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 } } } }