A.6.6:4.7 - Disambiguation guide for selecting the direct relation
When a draft uses an umbrella phrase (“anchored”, “attached”, “grounded”), replace it with the direct relation that actually fits the claim:
| Colloquial intent | Direct relation or reading (illustrative) | Participants and conditions | Typical supporting material, when needed |
|---|---|---|---|
| “This ID refers to that thing” | Identification (identifies) | For “ID I identifies entity E”, name I and E. If the source means an entity-ref or slot-content value instead, name that actual referent. | issuance record, registry pin |
| “This thing is indexed by that ID” | Indexing (indexedBy) | Entity E is indexed by ID I; apply the actual indexing rule. | issuance record, registry pin |
| “This thing is registered” | Registration (registeredIn) | Recover the participant registered, its registry or registry entry, and the domain’s registration predicate and direction. | issuance record, registry pin |
| “Make measurements comparable by calibration” | Calibration (calibratedTo) | Name the instrument, model, or output said to be calibrated and the applicable standard or datum; the domain’s calibration rule must determine their roles. | calibration Work plus certificate pin |
| “This is the datum of that” | Datum relation (datumOf) | Recover what is the datum of what, and the applicable domain rule; datumOf does not supply the calibration or normalisation predicate. | the domain-required basis; calibration Work or certificate pin only if that rule needs it |
| “Make measurements comparable by normalisation” | Normalisation (normalisedTo) | Name what is normalised—an instrument, model, or output—and the standard or datum used; recover the normalisation predicate and direction from its domain rule. | the domain-required basis; calibration Work or certificate pin only if that rule needs it |
| “This result bears on that claim” | Evidence use under A.2.4, with A.10 only when replayable provenance or reliance is needed | dependent: result or other evidence episteme; base: target claim | exact evidence-use relation; producing Work, result binding, carrier, provenance, currentness, and reliance remain separate |
| “This edge is grounded in construction” | Constructive grounding (tv:groundedBy) | dependent: WM edge; base: constructor trace (Γ_m) | trace pins, edition pins |
| “This description is about X” | Ordinary aboutness under A.7/C.2.1 | description episteme and its exact EntityOfConcern X; aboutness alone does not establish a source-to-receiving construction | the source or describing relation required by the use |
| “Construct a view of the same entity” | Viewing (viewedVia) under A.6.3 | separately identified source and receiving epistemes, the same exact EntityOfConcern, and the construction rule | viewing pins |
| “Retarget a description to another entity” | Retargeting (retargetedAlong) under A.6.4 | separately identified source and receiving epistemes with different exact EntitiesOfConcern, the retargeting arrow r, and separate bounded-use assertion q | exact r and q, and a separate current-case judgement when that case is evaluated |
| “Allowed only under policy P” | Constraint / policy (constrainedBy, permittedUnder) | dependent: work-step / publication item; base: policy/rule | policy pin, waiver/work ref |
| “Property belongs to object” | Attribution / aboutness (attributedTo, aboutEntity, characterises) | dependent: property/abstraction; base: object | observation/derivation witnesses |
| “This expression means … in this source” | Source-local meaning lane (F.0.1; F.17 only when a durable address or basis relation is needed) | local expression and local-sense claim | exact source passage and, when current, an obtaining basis relation |
This table is illustrative. Each row keeps its own direct relation and governor; it is not a list of species of one universal base relation or record. Grammatical subject and object expose a sentence’s direction but do not by themselves determine dependent/base allocation. Where the domain predicate or participant allocation is not supplied, recover it from the source or leave that local choice open; this guide does not define it. Ordinary aboutness and source-local meaning do not by themselves select a basedness or construction branch.
Note. A.6.3 defines the viewing arrow. A.6.4 keeps the retargeting arrow r, bounded-use assertion q, and current-case judgement separate: q’s ClaimGraph contains the invariant, visible loss, named receiving use, conditions, and affirmative or negative polarity; the judgement compares exact facts with q and returns exactly satisfies, fails, or cannot decide. A cannot decide judgement names the missing fact and reopen condition. This table directs those construction cases to their own patterns; it defines no second operator, arrow, assertion, judgement, application, or Work.