A.6.9:5.2 - Episteme archetype: Person in two knowledge-graph schemes

The sentence is: “Person in KG-A is equivalent to Person in KG-B.” The named readings are Person-including-fictional under KG-A v4 and Person-real-with-external-id under KG-B v7. Sherlock Holmes illustrates the fictional-person distinction; the external-id rule adds another membership condition. These cues establish neither Partial-overlap nor inclusion.

To test Partial-overlap, recover the exact membership definitions and a common admissible case, an A-only case and a B-only case. To test inclusion, establish the chosen proper-inclusion predicate from those definitions and case facts; the short labels do not supply it. Until then, stop and name the missing membership definition or case fact. No exact overlap Bridge is asserted by this sketch.

The two proposed uses remain conditional illustrations. If an exact Bridge obtains, a glossary comparison that labels both rows “Person” while displaying the fiction and external-id differences can receive affirmative polarity only for a stated direction, correspondence rule and loss tolerance, with a warranted A.10 result when relied on. A type-structure merge receives negative polarity only when its exact direction and merging rule cannot preserve membership and its tolerance permits no such loss. Those rule and case premises still have to be supplied.

When their basis is supplied, both claims concern the same obtaining Bridge; neither changes its identity. Refining KG-A into RealPerson and FictionalPerson changes an endpoint and opens a new Bridge test.