A.6.P:11 - SoTA-Echoing
A.6.P:11.1 - Ontological SoTA and constructive grounding
These sources constrain relation occurrence, identity, and construction. They are not interchangeable: FPF takes constructor-and-input discipline from the constructional-ontology line, uses BORO as a distinct 4D comparison, and treats implementation ontologies as stress comparators rather than proof.
| Ontological source and status | What it contributes | FPF adoption, mutation, and practical effect |
|---|---|---|
| Florio and Linnebo, Introduction to Constructional Ontology, 2024 | Separates constructors, constructor inputs, and constructional process, and examines functional and relational ways to characterize construction and output identity. | Adopt the discriminating construction test. Recover constructor, inputs, process, and identity only when the direct relation ontology makes construction constitutive. A storage operation is not thereby an ontological constructor. |
| Borgo and Righetti, Towards Applied Constructional Ontology, 2025 | Tests how constructional analysis can expose conceptual, structural, completeness, and consistency choices while marking unresolved application questions. | Adopt as improvement pressure, not an imported ontology. A.6.P exposes the exact construction and identity choice whenever it changes occurrence identity. |
| Partridge, BORO Ontology, C-FORS 2025 presentation | Presents BORO as a 4D extensional, category, and constructional ontology with an evolution method. | Use as an ontological comparison under an explicit boundary. A.6.P may use temporal extent when the direct identity rule needs it; FPF does not import universal 4D identity, unrestricted composition, or BORO’s category architecture. |
| Almeida, Guizzardi, Sales, and Fonseca, gUFO, 2026 preprint | Provides a foundational-ontology implementation with differentiated relation and reification patterns. | Use the distinctions as a comparator; do not treat the implementation as proof. Direct relation, optional explicit occurrence, assertion, and representation remain separate without importing the source category hierarchy. |
| OntoUML Relator, specification lineage | Models a relator as a dependent truth-maker whose existence connects participants in a material relation. | Retain as a material-relation comparator, not a universal answer. The physical case requires the direct parthood ontology to identify and justify such a truth-maker before a relator is introduced; formal and other relations receive none by analogy. |
| Andrei Rodin, Venus Homotopically, 2016 | Shows that identity across presentations is not obtained from a shared label alone; background, observations, and a trajectory can establish the same world-side referent. | Retain as constructive-grounding lineage. Candidate referents are separated through observations, identity tests, and direct-pattern conditions; naming does not close ontology. |
A.6.P:11.2 - Representation and implementation stress tests
These sources do not decide what exists. They test whether a representation can preserve the ontological distinctions selected above without turning a statement, row, graph term, tuple, or reifier into the world-side occurrence.
| Representation or implementation line | Distinction tested | Bounded use in A.6.P |
|---|---|---|
TypeDB 3.x links statement and current relation model | A query can select an explicit relation variable with named source-language role players, while shorthand remains available when no reference to the represented item is needed. | Test progressive explicitness, not ontology. A.6.P makes explicit occurrence identity conditional on a named receiver. TypeDB demonstrates one implementable representation; it does not establish the FPF relation kind, actual participation, obtaining condition, or identity rule. |
| RDF 1.2 Concepts, Candidate Recommendation Snapshot, 7 April 2026 | RDF distinguishes proposition expressed by a triple term, assertion of a triple, and reifiers used for further statements. | Test proposition, assertion, and reifier separation. A statement term or graph edge can represent claim content but cannot establish that the direct relation obtains. |
A.6.P:11.3 - Service and access separation pressure
These sources constrain the recovery of service or access wording; they do not define a service ontology for FPF.
| Source line | Separation pressure | FPF adoption, adaptation, and rejection |
|---|---|---|
| S-OPL: Service Ontology Pattern Language, specification v1.7 | Offering, agreement, participants, and delivery are related but different modeling problems. | Adopt the separation; adapt it by using the existing patterns for promise content, commitment, speech acts, direct participation, system-role kinds, direct system-role assignments, Work, evidence, and evaluation. Reject the imported process ontology and service ontology, participant taxonomy, and any common service-situation carrier or service bundle. |
| NIST SP 800-207, Zero Trust Architecture | Requester, resource, policy decision, and enforcement functions must remain distinguishable in an access decision. | Adopt the demand to name the exact requester, requested use, resource, policy or grant, and enforcement facts; adapt grants through A.2.8.PER and performed enforcement through a system, assignment, and dated Work when those facts are current. Reject the component diagram as FPF ontology and infer neither U.Access nor AccessRelation. |
| The Open Group ArchiMate 3.2 specification | Service, interface or point of access, and realization system are not interchangeable. | Retain as a comparison only. Distinguish a service provision, access description or Method, exact access point, and realization bearer; use A.1 only for a separate system-dependent claim. Reject imported ArchiMate elements and relations, source-word-induced systemhood, and addressability as a classification rule. |
Earlier public service lineage also cited ITIL 4, ISO 24617-2 speech-act practice, and SRE literature. They remain bounded examples rather than ontological governors: ITIL offer and service-level wording can cue A.2.3 or A.6.C; a communicative act is separated from its content and any enduring binding by A.2.9, A.2.3, and A.2.8; SRE interface, SLO, deployment, telemetry, and incident distinctions can help name separate claims. None licenses an always-unpack word rule, a mandatory facet family, every deontic phrase becoming a commitment, every performative phrase becoming a speech act, or actuals becoming Work and evidence automatically.
Across these sources, FPF adopts separation pressure and adapts it to the subject-and-relation distinctions in 4.11a. It explicitly rejects U.Access, AccessRelation, a service bundle, word-induced systemhood, and blanket actuals-to-Work.
The first table governs the general ontological moves. The second checks representability only after those moves have been selected. The service-and-access table constrains one recurring recovery branch without importing a service ontology. The physical, clinical, episteme, work, and formal cases test that the resulting method is not specialized to information systems.
Reopen the smallest affected passage. Start with the one claim, case, continuation, or source row that uses the changed fact. Reopen it when the exact subject predicate changes who participates, when the relation obtains, or how an occurrence is reidentified; when newer source evidence overturns or narrows the construction or reification distinction used there; or when an actual use can no longer reach the practical result or stopping boundary promised by that passage. Do not reopen the whole pattern unless the same change reaches several passages. If a continuation no longer matches the cited pattern’s Use this when condition and promised result, stop using that continuation until it is repaired.