holonymy

Paired sense interpretation

Record separate glosses for the proposed whole and constituent, with language and contextual restrictions.

1. Which exact sense denotes the whole, and which denotes its constituent? definition
2. Would another sense of either expression invalidate the relationship? boundary

Whole role and pointer

WordNet defines the holonym as the whole relative to a part. Record argument roles explicitly even when a lookup traverses from constituent to whole. Reference: [WordNet glossary](https://wordnet.princeton.edu/documentation/wngloss7wn).

1. Does this assertion mean that W is a holonym of P, or that W has P as its holonym? definition
2. How should the inverse meronymy assertion be expressed without changing its senses or scope? action

Component role

Require an account of how the candidate part participates in the whole, rather than accepting proximity or possession.

1. What structural or functional role makes P a part of W in these senses? definition
2. Would P merely being stored inside or owned by W satisfy the proposed test, and if so how should the test be narrowed? boundary

Membership basis

Record the basis on which the whole is construed as a collective and the constituent as one of its members.

1. What makes W a collective with members rather than a category with instances? boundary
2. Is the claim about a conventional relationship between senses or one member's participation at a particular time? definition

Material constitution

WordNet provides distinct part, member and substance holonym relations. For a substance claim, establish constitution rather than incidental contact. Reference: [WordNet command documentation](https://wordnet.princeton.edu/documentation/wn1wn).

1. Does the substance constitute W, or is it only contained, transported or used by W? boundary
2. Is this material required by the selected sense of W or only present in some examples? definition

Contrastive paraphrases

Compare constituent, kind-of, instance-of, located-in and owned-by readings before accepting the relation.

1. Which paraphrase best preserves the intended claim: constituent of, kind of, instance of, located in or owned by? boundary
2. What counterexample would expose a mistaken classification as holonymy? boundary

Generalisation warrant

Treat an observed part-whole arrangement as evidence to assess, with its own scope, rather than automatically as a lexical relation.

1. What supports treating this pair as a relationship between meanings rather than a description of one situation? provenance
2. Does the evidence require restricting the claim to a design, period, community or context? boundary

Traceable holonymy evidence

Record whether support comes from an explicit lexical relation, a definition, contextual usage or an analyst's interpretation.

1. Which inspected entry or passage supports this exact sense pair and constituent subtype? provenance
2. Does the source explicitly assert holonymy, or is that classification an interpretation requiring review? provenance

Qualified acceptance

Record whether the relation is definitional, typical or context-dependent, and attribute conflicting judgments.

1. Can a referent of W lack P while still satisfying the selected meaning of W? boundary
2. Which sources or annotators disagree, and is their disagreement about senses, subtype or the criterion for constituency? provenance
3. Should the agent accept a restricted claim, retain competing interpretations or leave the relationship unresolved? action

Qualified chain inference

Require a stated rule before deriving a new relation through intermediate wholes, especially across constituent subtypes.

1. If A is a component of B and B is a member of C, what justifies any proposed holonymy relation between C and A? boundary
2. Which composition rule permits the derivation, and do its sense, subtype and context conditions hold? action
3. How will the derived assertion retain its supporting path and remain distinguishable from direct evidence? provenance

Bounded holonym navigation

Constrain whole lookup by sense, subtype and evidence state; investigate reciprocal or self-referential claims under the chosen relation convention.

1. Which whole candidates satisfy the requested sense, constituent subtype and evidence threshold? action
2. If a path returns to its starting sense, does this reveal reversed arguments, conflated senses or a convention requiring explicit review? boundary
3. When a supporting claim is rejected, which inverse or derived relationships must be reconsidered? action

Check these first

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these check these first hold for the sense of holonymy this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Kinds and varieties

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of holonymy this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Identifiers and schemes

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of holonymy this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Real-world use

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of holonymy this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Failure modes and hazards

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of holonymy this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of holonymy this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance