{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T10:17:53Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 18.5, "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: 01a0951e-8edb-79e3-9560-fadd8e388eff\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: holonymy\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: XCT.REL\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 043: 1001 regist", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 71.3, "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: 01a0951e-8ee4-79c3-83dd-ba23114f1563\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: holonymy\nRegistry id: vr.tr.holonymy\nPlane / domain: XCT / XCT.REL\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\nContex" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:59:44+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "failure_modes_and_hazards", "owners" ] }, "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-09T07:30:04+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q922789", "registryId": "vr.tr.holonymy", "name": "holonymy", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "XCT.REL" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q922789/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.holonymy", "name": "holonymy", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise, evaluate and use claims that one word sense denotes a whole relative to another sense denoting its part, member or constituent substance.", "definition": "Holonymy is the lexical semantic relation in which one word denotes a whole of which the referent of another word is a part, member, or constituent substance, making it the inverse of meronymy.", "scope_statement": "This model owns holonymy (vr.tr.holonymy, XCT / XCT.REL) as a directed semantic relation, including sense selection, constituent subtype, supporting evidence and limits on inference.", "in_scope": [ "Identification of whole-denoting and constituent-denoting senses", "Part, member and substance interpretations of holonymy", "Explicit relation direction and its inverse meronymy", "Distinction between lexical relationships and particular whole-constituent observations", "Evidence, contextual qualifications and permitted inference" ], "out_of_scope": [ "General axioms and competing formal systems of mereology", "Hypernymy, hyponymy and class-instance relations", "Ownership, temporary containment and spatial proximity alone", "Complete physical assembly, ingredient or organisational membership records", "Metonymy and other rhetorical uses of whole and part names" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "The proposed whole must pass a constituent paraphrase: a wheel is part of a vehicle; a vehicle is not a kind of wheel.", "Direction is explicit: the whole-denoting sense is the holonym, while the constituent-denoting sense is the meronym.", "The relationship must hold for specified senses; an association between ambiguous spellings is insufficient.", "Possession or location alone does not establish holonymy: a suitcase containing a shirt does not thereby make the shirt a constituent of the suitcase.", "Membership concerns a collective whole, whereas class inclusion concerns a category: a musician can belong to an orchestra without being a kind of orchestra." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Whole and constituent senses", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Paired sense descriptions or sense identifiers, with language and lexical resource where applicable", "why_it_matters": "Makes the claim interpretable without relying on ambiguous word forms." }, { "name": "Constituent subtype", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "part | member | substance | other explicitly defined subtype | unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Separates relationships that require different tests and inference rules." }, { "name": "Direction convention", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "holonym-of(whole, constituent) | has-holonym(constituent, whole)", "why_it_matters": "Prevents graph pointer direction from reversing the semantic assertion." }, { "name": "Assertion level", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "lexical sense relation | contextual interpretation | particular instance observation", "why_it_matters": "Prevents one observed assembly or membership from becoming an unsupported lexical generalisation." }, { "name": "Constituency qualification", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "definitional | typical | optional | context-dependent | unresolved, with justification", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes characteristic constituents from claims of universal necessity." }, { "name": "Evaluation state", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "proposed | supported within stated scope | disputed | rejected | unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Determines whether the agent may use the assertion or must seek further evidence." }, { "name": "Inference permission", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "direct assertion only | inverse permitted | specified composition permitted | unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Controls expansion beyond the relationship actually established." } ], "affordances": [ "Identify candidate whole senses for a constituent sense.", "Disambiguate a candidate pair and test its constituent interpretation.", "Classify a supported relationship as part, member or substance holonymy.", "Express the corresponding inverse meronymy assertion while preserving qualifications.", "Reject or redirect claims that express taxonomy, ownership or containment.", "Expand a relation chain only under an explicit, justified composition rule." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Identify holonym and meronym pairs and explain the part, member or substance relation.", "Build or check holonymy links in lexical resources it is authorized to edit." ], "must_not": [ "Present a holonymy link as universal when it holds only in one language or sense.", "Merge part, member and substance relations into one without noting the difference.", "Invent lexical relations and present them as attested in a dictionary." ], "requires_human": [ "Changing shared lexical databases that other tools rely on." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Lexical resources shape language technology; errors spread to many applications." ], "affected_parties": [ "Users of language tools", "Lexicographers" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns the relation; editors of each lexical resource answer for their entries.", "master_systems": [] }, "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Wrong part-whole links in a lexical database can mislead search and reasoning systems." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "Holonymy is used in lexical semantics and lexical databases to connect a word sense denoting a whole with senses denoting its parts, members or constituent substances.", "It supports language understanding and knowledge organization when the relevant word senses and type of whole-part relationship are explicit." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "interfaces": "No dedicated standard, law or official classification applies to holonymy as an abstract semantic relation.", "recognition": "Holonymy is an abstract relation between word senses and has no visual appearance." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q922789: holonymy", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q922789", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Holonymy", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonymy", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "sense-and-direction", "name": "Sense and direction", "description": "Establish precisely which meanings occupy the whole and constituent roles.", "rationale": "Holonymy cannot be evaluated reliably when senses or argument direction are ambiguous.", "layers": [ { "id": "sense-anchoring", "name": "Sense anchoring", "description": "Resolve each expression to the meaning involved in the claim.", "findings": [ { "id": "paired-sense-interpretation", "name": "Paired sense interpretation", "description": "Record separate glosses for the proposed whole and constituent, with language and contextual restrictions.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which exact sense denotes the whole, and which denotes its constituent?", "kind": "definition", "id": "paired-sense-interpretation-q01" }, { "text": "Would another sense of either expression invalidate the relationship?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "paired-sense-interpretation-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "orientation-and-inverse", "name": "Orientation and inverse", "description": "Separate the semantic roles from a resource's pointer convention.", "findings": [ { "id": "whole-role-and-pointer", "name": "Whole role and pointer", "description": "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).", "questions": [ { "text": "Does this assertion mean that W is a holonym of P, or that W has P as its holonym?", "kind": "definition", "id": "whole-role-and-pointer-q01" }, { "text": "How should the inverse meronymy assertion be expressed without changing its senses or scope?", "kind": "action", "id": "whole-role-and-pointer-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "constituent-interpretations", "name": "Constituent interpretations", "description": "Determine what makes the proposed constituent belong to the whole.", "rationale": "A component, a collective member and a constituent material require different supporting explanations.", "layers": [ { "id": "component-part", "name": "Component part", "description": "Assess a constituent understood as a part of an organised whole.", "findings": [ { "id": "component-role", "name": "Component role", "description": "Require an account of how the candidate part participates in the whole, rather than accepting proximity or possession.", "questions": [ { "text": "What structural or functional role makes P a part of W in these senses?", "kind": "definition", "id": "component-role-q01" }, { "text": "Would P merely being stored inside or owned by W satisfy the proposed test, and if so how should the test be narrowed?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "component-role-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "collective-member", "name": "Collective member", "description": "Assess membership in a collective rather than inclusion in a class.", "findings": [ { "id": "membership-basis", "name": "Membership basis", "description": "Record the basis on which the whole is construed as a collective and the constituent as one of its members.", "questions": [ { "text": "What makes W a collective with members rather than a category with instances?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "membership-basis-q01" }, { "text": "Is the claim about a conventional relationship between senses or one member's participation at a particular time?", "kind": "definition", "id": "membership-basis-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "constituent-substance", "name": "Constituent substance", "description": "Assess a material understood as constituting a whole.", "findings": [ { "id": "material-constitution", "name": "Material constitution", "description": "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).", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the substance constitute W, or is it only contained, transported or used by W?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "material-constitution-q01" }, { "text": "Is this material required by the selected sense of W or only present in some examples?", "kind": "definition", "id": "material-constitution-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "semantic-boundaries", "name": "Semantic boundaries", "description": "Test whether the candidate relationship belongs to holonymy or a neighbouring relation.", "rationale": "Broad phrases such as 'has', 'belongs to' and 'part of' do not uniquely identify holonymy.", "layers": [ { "id": "taxonomy-and-association", "name": "Taxonomy and association", "description": "Separate constituency from category inclusion and ordinary association.", "findings": [ { "id": "contrastive-paraphrases", "name": "Contrastive paraphrases", "description": "Compare constituent, kind-of, instance-of, located-in and owned-by readings before accepting the relation.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which paraphrase best preserves the intended claim: constituent of, kind of, instance of, located in or owned by?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "contrastive-paraphrases-q01" }, { "text": "What counterexample would expose a mistaken classification as holonymy?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "contrastive-paraphrases-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "lexical-and-instance-scope", "name": "Lexical and instance scope", "description": "Distinguish conventional meaning relationships from individual arrangements.", "findings": [ { "id": "generalisation-warrant", "name": "Generalisation warrant", "description": "Treat an observed part-whole arrangement as evidence to assess, with its own scope, rather than automatically as a lexical relation.", "questions": [ { "text": "What supports treating this pair as a relationship between meanings rather than a description of one situation?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "generalisation-warrant-q01" }, { "text": "Does the evidence require restricting the claim to a design, period, community or context?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "generalisation-warrant-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-variation", "name": "Evidence and variation", "description": "Assess the warrant for a holonymy claim and preserve disagreement about its interpretation.", "rationale": "Resource conventions and contextual judgments must remain visible when an agent accepts or disputes a relationship.", "layers": [ { "id": "claim-support", "name": "Claim support", "description": "Connect the exact sense pair and subtype to inspectable evidence.", "findings": [ { "id": "traceable-holonymy-evidence", "name": "Traceable holonymy evidence", "description": "Record whether support comes from an explicit lexical relation, a definition, contextual usage or an analyst's interpretation.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which inspected entry or passage supports this exact sense pair and constituent subtype?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "traceable-holonymy-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "Does the source explicitly assert holonymy, or is that classification an interpretation requiring review?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "traceable-holonymy-evidence-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "qualification-and-disagreement", "name": "Qualification and disagreement", "description": "Preserve differences in constituent necessity and relation classification.", "findings": [ { "id": "qualified-acceptance", "name": "Qualified acceptance", "description": "Record whether the relation is definitional, typical or context-dependent, and attribute conflicting judgments.", "questions": [ { "text": "Can a referent of W lack P while still satisfying the selected meaning of W?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "qualified-acceptance-q01" }, { "text": "Which sources or annotators disagree, and is their disagreement about senses, subtype or the criterion for constituency?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "qualified-acceptance-q02" }, { "text": "Should the agent accept a restricted claim, retain competing interpretations or leave the relationship unresolved?", "kind": "action", "id": "qualified-acceptance-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "inference-and-use", "name": "Inference and use", "description": "Control how accepted holonymy claims support retrieval and derived relationships.", "rationale": "Useful whole-constituent navigation requires safeguards against unsupported composition and changes in scope.", "layers": [ { "id": "relation-composition", "name": "Relation composition", "description": "Evaluate chains using explicit subtype and scope conditions.", "findings": [ { "id": "qualified-chain-inference", "name": "Qualified chain inference", "description": "Require a stated rule before deriving a new relation through intermediate wholes, especially across constituent subtypes.", "questions": [ { "text": "If A is a component of B and B is a member of C, what justifies any proposed holonymy relation between C and A?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "qualified-chain-inference-q01" }, { "text": "Which composition rule permits the derivation, and do its sense, subtype and context conditions hold?", "kind": "action", "id": "qualified-chain-inference-q02" }, { "text": "How will the derived assertion retain its supporting path and remain distinguishable from direct evidence?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "qualified-chain-inference-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "retrieval-and-correction", "name": "Retrieval and correction", "description": "Use accepted claims to retrieve relevant wholes and diagnose contradictory edges.", "findings": [ { "id": "bounded-holonym-navigation", "name": "Bounded holonym navigation", "description": "Constrain whole lookup by sense, subtype and evidence state; investigate reciprocal or self-referential claims under the chosen relation convention.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which whole candidates satisfy the requested sense, constituent subtype and evidence threshold?", "kind": "action", "id": "bounded-holonym-navigation-q01" }, { "text": "If a path returns to its starting sense, does this reveal reversed arguments, conflated senses or a convention requiring explicit review?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "bounded-holonym-navigation-q02" }, { "text": "When a supporting claim is rejected, which inverse or derived relationships must be reconsidered?", "kind": "action", "id": "bounded-holonym-navigation-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-external-alignment", "name": "Evidence and external alignment", "description": "What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.", "rationale": "A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.", "layers": [ { "id": "reported-evidence", "name": "Reported evidence", "description": "Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes", "name": "Check these first", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "The three listed varieties follow the familiar WordNet distinction; broader accounts of part-whole semantics distinguish additional relations.", "The boundaries between componenthood, membership, material constitution, and containment depend on the semantic framework.", "This account is recalled knowledge; no sources were consulted." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of holonymy 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": [ "Part holonymy: a whole related to a component, as car to wheel.", "Member holonymy: a collection related to a member, as forest to tree.", "Substance holonymy: a whole related to its constituent material, as bread to flour." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of holonymy 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": "Princeton WordNet relation pointer symbols", "value_or_pattern": "#p, #m, #s", "note": "These identify part, member, and substance holonym pointers respectively; they are relation codes, not identifiers for the concept itself." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-identifiers-q01", "text": "Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of holonymy 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": [ "Encoding whole-part relations between noun senses in WordNet and related lexical databases.", "Supporting natural-language understanding of references to wholes and their parts.", "Expanding information retrieval queries using relations between components and wholes.", "Teaching and analysing lexical semantic relations." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of holonymy 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": [ "Reversing the relation: wheel is a meronym of car, while car is a holonym of wheel.", "Confusing whole-part relations with class inclusion: animal is a hypernym of dog, not its holonym.", "Treating any association, possession, or spatial containment as holonymy.", "Assuming every variety of whole-part relation is transitive without checking the relation types and context.", "Assigning relations to ambiguous words without distinguishing their senses." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of holonymy 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": "meronymy", "difference": "Meronymy points from a part to its whole; holonymy points from the whole to the part." }, { "name": "hypernymy", "difference": "Hypernymy expresses category inclusion through an 'is a kind of' test; holonymy expresses a whole related to something that is part of it." }, { "name": "mereology", "difference": "Mereology studies formal relations between parts and wholes; holonymy describes a lexical semantic relation between word senses." }, { "name": "spatial containment", "difference": "Being located inside something does not necessarily make an entity a constituent part of it." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of holonymy this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which reference traditions should govern this registry entry, and where do they differ from WordNet's treatment of holonymy?", "Should portion-mass, place-region and phase-process relationships be included as additional subtypes or assigned to neighbouring models?", "What evidence threshold distinguishes a conventional lexical holonymy relationship from a plausible but occasional whole-constituent association?", "Which transitivity or mixed-subtype composition rules can be justified for each adopted interpretation?", "How should cross-language differences in lexicalised wholes and constituents be represented without assuming equivalent sense boundaries?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 12, "findings": 17, "questions": 31 } }