A.6.0:11 - SoTA-Echoing
| Current source | What it contributes | FPF disposition and practical implication |
|---|---|---|
| JuliaHub Dyad 3.2 component and analysis documentation; Modelica 3.7 retained only as historical acausal-modeling lineage | Dyad supplies the current engineering comparator: reusable relation-first components and connections remain separate from selected analyses, solution objects, generated artifacts, and optional schematic presentation. Modelica preserves the older declarative-connection lineage. | Adopt and generalize the separation, not either tool’s ontology. Keep the connector or relation declaration separate from a concrete assertion, analysis, generated equations or artifacts, solver Work, and diagram. FPF relation-kind admission, participant meanings, the direct predicate, applicability, and the occurrence-identity rule require an FPF direct governor. |
The current Lean Language Reference, covering Lean 4.33.0-rc1, describes structures through named fields whose types may depend on earlier fields, while the kernel checks formal terms independently from presentation convenience. | It supports the case 5.4 representation of the indexed result as Vector Real n and makes the dependence of result length on argument n inspectable. | Adapt as a dependent-type representation precedent. A.6.1 defines the argument and result meanings. The concrete Lean-to-proof-carrying-record comparison stays under A.6.3.RT unless a named lens changes the next comparison action. |
| TypeDB 3.x declares relation types through explicit related role types and can specialize those declarations. | It supports stable schema-local names as a representation precedent for declared participant positions. | Adapt with a stricter boundary. A.6.5 SlotSpecs are used only after the FPF relation kind and direct governor are independently settled. |
| For the RDF-validation branch, SHACL 1.2 Core (Working Draft, 30 June 2026) gives the current standards-track answer by separating shapes graphs, evaluated data graphs, validation work, and validation reports. | It supports keeping a reusable constraint declaration, evaluated data, evaluation work, and an evaluation-report episteme as different objects. | Adapt only as a work-in-progress representation and validation precedent. The clinical local claim and the learning A.2.4/A.10 evidence-use relation remain governed by their current FPF subject patterns. |
| For the semantic-web foundational-ontology branch, the March 2026 gUFO preprint gives a current branch answer by using reification patterns for relational aspects. | It supplies a stress question about when arity, participant dependence, and relation-occurrence reification matter. | Reject as FPF ontology; retain only as a stress comparator. For relation-kind admission, the direct predicate and occurrence identity, use the FPF direct governor. Apply §4.8’s three receiving-use questions to decide whether a declaration or occurrence identity is needed. |
Sources:
- JuliaHub, Dyad 3.2 documentation; Modelica Association, Connectors and Connections as historical lineage.
- Lean project, Inductive Types and Structures.
- TypeDB,
relatesstatement. - W3C, SHACL 1.2 Core.
- Almeida, Guizzardi, Sales, and Fonseca, gUFO: A Gentle Foundational Ontology for Semantic Web Knowledge Graphs.
These sources test the separation among declaration, represented structure, realization, and use. FPF’s constructive ontology, C.2.1 episteme identity, A.6.5 relation-slot discipline, A.6.1 operation declaration, and direct relation patterns remain authoritative for the solution.