{ "model": { "rank": 3342, "code": "thing-q81414", "model_id": "vr.tr.internet-protocol-suite", "name": "Internet protocol suite", "purpose": "Enable an agent to identify an Internet protocol suite profile, assess its interoperability and operational constraints, and determine appropriate implementation, configuration and migration actions.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Information and virtual systems", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "INF", "domain": "INF.KNW", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q81414/", "tier": 2, "score": 87, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [], "aliasCount": 0, "merged": 0, "knownIn": 87, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q81414", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q81414", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-07T14:30:44Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 27.8, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.3\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: 01a07c46-1f12-7260-9ca5-06bac8d78a58\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: Internet protocol suite\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: INF.KNW\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 546 things:\n# Batch 00", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 80, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.3\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: 01a07c46-1f23-7262-9cdf-25c6c8cec161\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: Internet protocol suite\nRegistry id: vr.tr.internet-protocol-suite\nPlane / domain: INF / INF.KNW\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded in" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q81414", "registryId": "vr.tr.internet-protocol-suite", "name": "Internet protocol suite", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "INF.KNW" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q81414/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.internet-protocol-suite", "name": "Internet protocol suite", "purpose": "Enable an agent to identify an Internet protocol suite profile, assess its interoperability and operational constraints, and determine appropriate implementation, configuration and migration actions.", "definition": "The Internet protocol suite, commonly called TCP/IP, is the layered family of communication protocols built around the Internet Protocol that enables interconnected networks to exchange packets and supports transport and application services.", "scope_statement": "This model owns the Internet protocol suite as a family of interoperating communication protocols, commonly called TCP/IP, including architectural relationships, protocol selection and compatibility requirements; it treats the registered thing as a technical architecture rather than a discipline of study.", "in_scope": [ "Architectural roles of link, Internet, transport and application protocols", "Protocol membership, versions, extensions and dependencies within a declared suite profile", "Addressing, packet delivery, transport semantics and application protocol bindings", "Interoperability requirements and evidence for a particular implementation or deployment profile", "Security properties, operational constraints and protocol evolution" ], "out_of_scope": [ "The Internet as a deployed global network and its ownership or physical topology", "Individual routers, hosts, network interfaces and transmission media", "Complete specifications of individual member protocols, which belong in their own models", "The OSI reference model and other protocol architectures as independently modeled things", "Computer networking as a discipline, including degrees, journals and professional societies", "Application business logic and organizational security policy" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Identifies a family of protocols organized around IP-based internetworking, rather than a single protocol such as TCP or IP.", "Expresses relationships among usable communication protocols, whereas a reference model alone classifies communication functions.", "Can describe communication within an isolated IP network; connection to the public Internet is not an identity requirement.", "Allows transport choices beyond TCP, so the conventional name TCP/IP must not be interpreted as requiring TCP for every exchange.", "Separates a protocol specification from its software implementation and from the network in which that implementation operates." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Suite profile", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Explicit set of selected protocols, versions, extensions and applicable requirements", "why_it_matters": "The suite name alone does not establish what two endpoints can actually use together." }, { "name": "IP version support", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "IPv4; IPv6; both; unspecified", "why_it_matters": "Determines addressing compatibility and whether a transition mechanism must be considered." }, { "name": "Architectural role", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Protocol-to-role mapping under a named layering convention", "why_it_matters": "Makes dependencies and disputed layer boundaries explicit." }, { "name": "Transport service semantics", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Recorded combination of stream or message service, reliability, ordering, multiplexing and congestion behavior", "why_it_matters": "Allows an agent to select a transport according to application needs rather than protocol name alone." }, { "name": "Encapsulation and binding dependencies", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Carried-by, identified-by, resolves-through and requires relationships", "why_it_matters": "Exposes missing components and assumptions that can prevent communication." }, { "name": "Interoperability evidence", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Untested; demonstrated for a stated scenario; partially demonstrated; failed for a stated scenario", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes advertised support from observed communication under known conditions." }, { "name": "Effective path MTU", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Octets, with path, direction, observation time and discovery method", "why_it_matters": "Constrains packet sizing and helps diagnose delivery failures involving encapsulation or blocked control messages." }, { "name": "Security coverage", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Mechanism-to-property and mechanism-to-protected-segment mappings", "why_it_matters": "Prevents attributing authentication, confidentiality or integrity to traffic that a selected mechanism does not protect." } ], "affordances": [ "Construct a suite profile for a host, service or network role and identify missing dependencies.", "Compare endpoint and path capabilities to assess whether communication is feasible.", "Select transport and application bindings against required communication semantics.", "Trace an interoperability failure through addressing, encapsulation, transport and application dependencies.", "Assess the scope of security mechanisms and identify unprotected boundaries.", "Plan a protocol-version or extension migration with explicit compatibility checks and rollback conditions." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "suite-identity-and-architecture", "name": "Suite identity and architecture", "description": "Establishes what counts as this suite and how its constituent protocols relate.", "rationale": "An agent must distinguish the protocol family from a reference model, a particular stack and the deployed Internet.", "layers": [ { "id": "identity-and-membership", "name": "Identity and membership", "description": "Defines the modeled family and the boundary of any selected profile.", "findings": [ { "id": "protocol-family-boundary", "name": "Protocol family boundary", "description": "Record the meaning of Internet protocol suite and the authority used to include a protocol in the family or a deployment profile.", "questions": [ { "text": "What definition distinguishes the Internet protocol suite from an implementation commonly called a TCP/IP stack?", "kind": "definition", "id": "protocol-family-boundary-q01" }, { "text": "Which specification or architectural source supports each included protocol's membership or dependency role?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "protocol-family-boundary-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "layering-and-encapsulation", "name": "Layering and encapsulation", "description": "Records architectural roles and actual carriage relationships without forcing every protocol into an uncontested layer.", "findings": [ { "id": "roles-and-carriage", "name": "Roles and carriage", "description": "Represent link, Internet, transport and application roles alongside encapsulation, tunneling and cross-layer dependencies.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which layering convention is used, and how does it classify protocols whose roles cross its boundaries?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "roles-and-carriage-q01" }, { "text": "For a selected exchange, which protocols carry which payloads, and which identifiers distinguish the next protocol?", "kind": "definition", "id": "roles-and-carriage-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "addressing-and-internetwork-delivery", "name": "Addressing and internetwork delivery", "description": "Captures the conditions under which IP packets can be addressed and delivered across a path.", "rationale": "Shared suite membership does not establish compatible address families, reachable destinations or usable packet sizes.", "layers": [ { "id": "addresses-and-reachability", "name": "Addresses and reachability", "description": "Separates endpoint addressing, address scope, local delivery and forwarding requirements.", "findings": [ { "id": "ip-delivery-preconditions", "name": "IP delivery preconditions", "description": "Record address-family compatibility, destination scope, next-hop resolution and route availability for a communication scenario.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which IP versions and address scopes are available at both endpoints, and what mechanism supports communication if their capabilities differ?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "ip-delivery-preconditions-q01" }, { "text": "What observations establish usable next-hop resolution and forwarding in each direction?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "ip-delivery-preconditions-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "packet-size-and-control-feedback", "name": "Packet size and control feedback", "description": "Examines packet sizing, fragmentation rules and network feedback under the selected IP version.", "findings": [ { "id": "path-delivery-constraints", "name": "Path delivery constraints", "description": "Record effective MTU, encapsulation overhead and the availability of control feedback needed to diagnose or adapt delivery.", "questions": [ { "text": "What effective path MTU has been observed, and how do tunnels or other encapsulations reduce the usable packet size?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "path-delivery-constraints-q01" }, { "text": "Which version-specific packet-sizing and control-message behaviors must be checked when small packets succeed but larger exchanges fail?", "kind": "action", "id": "path-delivery-constraints-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "transport-and-application-composition", "name": "Transport and application composition", "description": "Connects application communication requirements to transport semantics and protocol bindings.", "rationale": "An agent must not infer reliability, ordering, discovery or session behavior from IP connectivity alone.", "layers": [ { "id": "transport-service-selection", "name": "Transport service selection", "description": "Describes the service exposed to applications by each selected transport.", "findings": [ { "id": "required-and-provided-semantics", "name": "Required and provided semantics", "description": "Compare application requirements with transport guarantees, limitations and responsibilities delegated to higher layers.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the application require a byte stream or messages, and what reliability, ordering and multiplexing behavior does it need?", "kind": "definition", "id": "required-and-provided-semantics-q01" }, { "text": "Which selected protocol supplies congestion control, loss recovery and flow control, and what remains the application's responsibility?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "required-and-provided-semantics-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "service-identification-and-binding", "name": "Service identification and binding", "description": "Records how an application locates a peer and agrees on the protocol to use.", "findings": [ { "id": "application-binding-chain", "name": "Application binding chain", "description": "Trace optional name resolution, endpoint selection, ports and protocol negotiation to the intended application service.", "questions": [ { "text": "How does the application obtain a destination address and service endpoint, and which resolution or discovery steps are optional dependencies?", "kind": "definition", "id": "application-binding-chain-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence identifies the negotiated application protocol and version beyond an assumed association with a port number?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "application-binding-chain-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "interoperability-and-evolution", "name": "Interoperability and evolution", "description": "Links specification requirements to observed compatibility and controlled protocol changes.", "rationale": "Protocol support claims must be evaluated against specific versions, options, peers and path behavior.", "layers": [ { "id": "requirements-and-test-evidence", "name": "Requirements and test evidence", "description": "Separates normative requirements, implementation claims and demonstrated behavior.", "findings": [ { "id": "profile-conformance-and-interoperation", "name": "Profile conformance and interoperation", "description": "Record applicable specification versions and test outcomes without treating one successful exchange as proof of complete conformance.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which specifications, updates and errata define the requirements for the selected endpoint or router role?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "profile-conformance-and-interoperation-q01" }, { "text": "Which peers, options, packet conditions and failure cases were exercised, and what compatibility limits remain untested?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "profile-conformance-and-interoperation-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "extensions-and-transition", "name": "Extensions and transition", "description": "Records how new protocol capabilities coexist with existing endpoints and intermediate devices.", "findings": [ { "id": "migration-and-fallback-behavior", "name": "Migration and fallback behavior", "description": "Describe capability discovery, extension handling, version transition and fallback conditions for a proposed change.", "questions": [ { "text": "How do peers and intermediate devices behave when they encounter an unsupported version, option or extension?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "migration-and-fallback-behavior-q01" }, { "text": "What staged checks and rollback conditions are required before changing the suite profile, including any IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanism?", "kind": "action", "id": "migration-and-fallback-behavior-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "security-and-path-mediation", "name": "Security and path mediation", "description": "Identifies which mechanisms protect communication and how path devices alter protocol behavior.", "rationale": "Security coverage and intermediary behavior can determine whether otherwise compatible protocols are usable.", "layers": [ { "id": "security-properties-and-trust", "name": "Security properties and trust", "description": "Maps protection mechanisms to identities, traffic and trust boundaries.", "findings": [ { "id": "protection-coverage", "name": "Protection coverage", "description": "Record authentication, confidentiality, integrity and replay protection only where an identified mechanism supplies them.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which mechanisms provide each required security property, and between which endpoints or termination points does protection apply?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "protection-coverage-q01" }, { "text": "Which trust anchors, credentials and negotiation requirements must an agent verify before accepting the communication as protected?", "kind": "action", "id": "protection-coverage-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "intermediary-effects", "name": "Intermediary effects", "description": "Captures translation, filtering, proxying and tunneling effects on communication.", "findings": [ { "id": "mediated-path-behavior", "name": "Mediated path behavior", "description": "Record how intermediate devices change addressing, maintain flow state, terminate protocols or restrict usable traffic.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which intermediaries translate addresses or ports, terminate connections, filter control traffic or impose state timeouts?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "mediated-path-behavior-q01" }, { "text": "What permitted configuration or protocol adjustment would restore the required communication while retaining the deployment's stated security requirements?", "kind": "action", "id": "mediated-path-behavior-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 protocol family, not a discipline, despite the supplied domain context.", "The listed kinds are deployment configurations, not formally standardised subdivisions of the suite; four-layer and five-layer teaching models also coexist.", "References are recalled, not consulted. Research should check updates, errata, and applicability; no universal performance ranges apply to the suite." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of Internet protocol suite 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": [ "IPv4-based implementations", "IPv6-based implementations", "Dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 implementations" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of Internet protocol suite this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-identifiers", "name": "Identifiers and schemes", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "scheme": "Request for Comments (RFC) document numbers", "value_or_pattern": "RFC followed by an integer", "note": "Identify protocol specifications and related documents; not every RFC is an Internet Standard." }, { "scheme": "IANA Protocol Numbers", "value_or_pattern": "0-255", "note": "Identify protocols in the IPv4 Protocol field and IPv6 Next Header field; TCP is 6 and UDP is 17." }, { "scheme": "IANA Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", "value_or_pattern": "Service names and transport-specific port numbers in the range 0-65535", "note": "Records service assignments; a port number alone does not reliably establish which application is using it." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-identifiers-q01", "text": "Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of Internet protocol suite this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation", "name": "Standards and regulation", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "RFC 1122, Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers, IETF.", "RFC 791, Internet Protocol (IPv4), published in the RFC series before the IETF was established.", "RFC 8200, Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification, IETF.", "RFC 9293, Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), IETF.", "RFC 768, User Datagram Protocol (UDP), published in the RFC series before the IETF was established." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of Internet protocol suite 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": [ "Communication across the public Internet.", "Networking within enterprises, homes, and data centres.", "Supporting web access, email, name resolution, and remote administration.", "Carrying voice, video, and interactive application traffic.", "Connecting embedded devices and industrial systems." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of Internet protocol suite 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": [ "Packet loss, duplication, reordering, and variable delay can impair applications; IP itself does not guarantee delivery.", "Congestion can increase latency and loss and sharply reduce useful throughput.", "Addressing, routing, or name-resolution errors can prevent communication or direct traffic incorrectly.", "MTU mismatches and failed path-MTU discovery can cause connections to stall or particular packet sizes to fail.", "Without appropriate protections, deployments can be exposed to spoofing, interception, traffic modification, and denial-of-service attacks." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of Internet protocol suite 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": [ "IPv4 and IPv6 deployment proportions vary across countries, access providers, and organisations.", "Address-resource administration is organised through regional Internet registries; the core protocol formats are not region-specific." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of Internet protocol suite 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": "Internet", "difference": "The Internet is an operational network of interconnected networks; the suite is the protocol family used to communicate across it." }, { "name": "Internet Protocol", "difference": "IP provides the suite's network-layer addressing and packet-delivery mechanism; the suite also includes transport and application protocols." }, { "name": "TCP", "difference": "TCP is one transport protocol within the suite, providing a reliable, ordered byte stream; the suite also supports other transports." }, { "name": "OSI reference model", "difference": "OSI is a seven-layer reference framework; the Internet protocol suite is a family of implemented protocols with a different conventional layering." }, { "name": "Ethernet", "difference": "Ethernet supplies link-layer communication that can carry IP packets; it is not the Internet protocol suite itself." }, { "name": "Computer networking", "difference": "Computer networking is a field of knowledge and practice; the Internet protocol suite is a technical subject within that field." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of Internet protocol suite this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which authoritative architectural sources should define suite membership, particularly for routing, link-support and application protocols?", "Does the existing Vercy catalogue already contain an authoritative model of TCP/IP or the Internet architecture that this registry entry should reference?", "Which layering convention should govern the publication, and how should disputed placements and overlay protocols be represented?", "Which baseline profiles should the model support separately for hosts, routers and constrained devices?", "Which current specification updates, errata and deprecations must be researched before publishing concrete conformance or migration findings?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 18, "questions": 28 } }, "draft": { "generator": "vr.draft.v3", "status": "draft-generated", "researched": false, "archetype": "discipline or field of knowledge", "method": "Written from the archetype playbook - what this kind of thing needs beyond identity and provenance - and from the structure that recurred across 6,333 models already researched by two engines. Applied to this entry by rule. No source was read for this thing and no claim here is researched. This entry carries no facets of its own, so they were inferred from its domain - a guess about a whole domain applied to one thing.", "facetsInferred": true, "nextPass": "A researcher replaces this draft with a sourced specification. Treat every sentence below as a proposal to argue with.", "purpose": "Give an agent a durable, checkable way to recognise a Internet protocol suite, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to identify an Internet protocol suite profile, assess its interoperability and operational constraints, and determine appropriate implementation, configuration and migration actions.", "characteristics": { "substance": "information", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "read and interpreted" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Described in 87 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 Internet protocol suite, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "content that has to be carried by something else", "physicalCharacter": [ "Does nothing on its own; everything it does, something else did to it.", "These come from the domain this entry sits in rather than from the entry itself, so treat them as a first guess about the whole domain applied to one thing." ], "whatCanBeDoneWithIt": [ "read it and act on what it says" ], "howItIsRecognised": [], "relatedModels": [], "standing": "Described in 87 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 Internet protocol suite from another, and a Internet protocol suite 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 Internet protocol suite, 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 Internet protocol suite, 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 Internet protocol suite 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 Internet protocol suite, 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 Internet protocol suite, 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 Internet protocol suite 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 Internet protocol suite 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 Internet protocol suite, 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 Internet protocol suite, 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 Internet protocol suite 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 Internet protocol suite from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a Internet protocol suite, 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 Internet protocol suite, 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 Internet protocol suite 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 Internet protocol suite 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 Internet protocol suite between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a Internet protocol suite, 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 Internet protocol suite, 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 Internet protocol suite 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 Internet protocol suite, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a Internet protocol suite 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 Internet protocol suite, 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 Internet protocol suite, 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 Internet protocol suite 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 Internet protocol suite 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 Internet protocol suite contains and in what form it is held.", "questions": [ { "id": "content-and-format-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the content of a Internet protocol suite, 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 Internet protocol suite, 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 Internet protocol suite 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 Internet protocol suite and the period it survives.", "questions": [ { "id": "access-rules-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes access to a Internet protocol suite, 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 Internet protocol suite, 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 Internet protocol suite is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "subject-and-method", "name": "Subject matter and method", "description": "What Internet protocol suite studies and how it establishes anything.", "rationale": "A field is identified by its questions and its methods, and those are what distinguish it from the fields next to it.", "layers": [ { "id": "subject", "name": "Subject matter", "description": "The questions it takes as its own.", "findings": [ { "id": "subject-record", "name": "Questions and objects of study", "description": "What it is about, stated so a neighbouring field can be told apart.", "questions": [ { "id": "subject-record-q01", "text": "What questions and objects does Internet protocol suite take as its own?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "subject-record-q02", "text": "Which questions does it share with a neighbouring field, and who claims them?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "method", "name": "Method and evidence", "description": "How claims are established and what counts as evidence.", "findings": [ { "id": "method-record", "name": "Methods and standards of evidence", "description": "The methods used and what they are taken to establish.", "questions": [ { "id": "method-record-q01", "text": "By what methods does Internet protocol suite establish claims, and what counts as sufficient evidence?", "kind": "provenance" }, { "id": "method-record-q02", "text": "What kind of claim can this field not settle, and where should an agent look instead?", "kind": "action" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "institutions-and-classification", "name": "Institutions and classification", "description": "Where Internet protocol suite is practised and how catalogues place it.", "rationale": "The institutional footprint is the evidence that a field exists as a field rather than as a topic.", "layers": [ { "id": "institutions", "name": "Institutional markers", "description": "Societies, journals, degrees and departments.", "findings": [ { "id": "institution-record", "name": "Bodies and venues", "description": "Where the field organises itself.", "questions": [ { "id": "institution-record-q01", "text": "Which societies, journals or degrees mark Internet protocol suite as an established field?", "kind": "provenance" }, { "id": "institution-record-q02", "text": "What would show that it is emerging or dissolving rather than established?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "classification", "name": "Classification schemes", "description": "Where library and research classifications put it.", "findings": [ { "id": "classification-record", "name": "Codes and their disagreements", "description": "The classification codes that place it, and where they differ.", "questions": [ { "id": "classification-record-q01", "text": "Which classification schemes place Internet protocol suite, under what codes?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "classification-record-q02", "text": "Where do those schemes disagree about its scope?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "provenance-and-evidence", "name": "Provenance, evidence and time", "description": "Where every claim about a Internet protocol suite 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 Internet protocol suite and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a Internet protocol suite, 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 Internet protocol suite, 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 Internet protocol suite 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 Internet protocol suite is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a Internet protocol suite, 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 Internet protocol suite, 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 Internet protocol suite 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 } } } }