A.6.REL:5 - Archetypal Grounding
A.6.REL:5.1 - Repeated occurrence of one direct system-role-assignment species
Start with Robot-7 is assigned as inspector through InspectionAssignment-17 and trace only the objects needed by the current use.
- World-side participants and occurrence.
Robot-7remains an admittedU.System;InspectorSystemRoleremains one exact local C.3 kind.InspectionAssignment-17is an occurrence of directly declaredMaintenanceInspectionAssignment <: U.SystemRoleAssignment.Robot-7participates as the holder system andInspectorSystemRoleas the assigned local system-role kind. Those two values are the complete participant set of this direct species. - Direct settlement. A.2.1 supplies the species’ participant meanings, direct predicate, applicability, and same-versus-new-occurrence rule. The occurrence continues while that predicate obtains without interruption for the same complete participant set. A demonstrated predicate-false gap ends it; later resumption starts another occurrence. An evidence gap by itself does neither.
- Reusable declaration. For typed reuse, the
MaintenanceInspectionAssignmentRelationSignaturecontainsHolderSystemSlot : U.System / U.EntityRefand the declaration-localAssignedSystemRoleKindSlotwithMaintenanceSystemRoleKindDomainas ValueKind andByValueas refMode. InInspectionAssignment-17,InspectorSystemRoleis the assigned-kind participant value. A stronger direct species adds only its real identity-bearing participants.assignmentIntervalremains assertion or occurrence-description content, not another participant SlotSpec. - Assertion and participant designations. An
InspectionAssignmentAssertioncarries designations corresponding to the species’ declared SlotSpecs and states the currently knownassignmentIntervalseparately. Its claim may say thatRobot-7is currently assigned as inspector throughInspectionAssignment-17. If later use only needs that current report, keep the assertion and stop without adding another occurrence object. - Occurrence identity, designator, and reference. Suppose two episodes of the same direct species have the same complete participant values but occur in inspection shifts separated by a demonstrated predicate-false period. To prepare a history or Work-attribution claim that must distinguish the episodes, a practitioner applies the A.2.1 continuity rule, distinguishes the second occurrence, and assigns a designator only if stable reference is needed. A roster-row identifier, copied field set, taxonomy edition, reference scheme, or reused source key cannot collapse or split the two episodes.
- Representation. A roster row or diagram edge may represent the assignment assertion or an occurrence-description episteme. A roster row’s fields and key retain their representation-side meanings; the source elements of a diagram edge retain their representation-side meanings. An explicit declaration or representation correspondence relates a source field to the exact SlotKind and the carried value or reference to the participant designation; using the same spelling for field and SlotKind is optional and establishes no identity. Representation identity does not replace the A.2.1 occurrence rule.
The practical payoff is visible at each stop. In a current staffing report, keep the readable direct sentence. For typed reuse, consult the existing declaration. When history or Work attribution must distinguish a repeated episode, apply the A.2.1 continuity rule and distinguish that episode; assign a designator only if stable reference is needed.
A.6.REL:5.2 - Hypothetical installed-part boundary
Bearing_B isPartOf Pump_P may be a readable source claim, but current A.14 does not supply an InstalledPart relation kind, installed-part participant meanings, an installed-part obtaining predicate, or its same-versus-new-occurrence rule. Names such as InstalledPartRelationSignature, InstalledPartSlot, and AssemblyWholeSlot are therefore hypothetical candidates, not current declarations. Do not use them to claim conformance or an individuated installed-part occurrence.
A future accepted subject pattern could make installation work or a continuous installation interval identity-bearing, but A.6.REL does not choose that ontology. Until such a subject pattern exists, keep the physical entities, installation work, proposed part relation, assertion, occurrence description, designator, reference, and database or drawing representation separate, and stop before an occurrence-identity result.
A.6.REL:5.3 - Formal reduced case
The expression 3 < 5 is assertion content written in a mathematical notation. Under the referenced arithmetic structure, the values three and five satisfy the less-than predicate. The expression is not thereby a relation occurrence. No receiving use in this case needs the obtaining less-than relation occurrence explicitly individuated under U.Relation, so the engineer stops at the assertion. A graph edge or RDF reifier introduced by tooling remains a representation of the proposition or assertion and is not an occurrence-identity rule in the formal subject domain.
A.6.REL:5.4 - Relation occurrence as a participant
C.22.PFR has one actual-condition relation occurrence and one problem-criterion-applicability relation occurrence as world-side participants. Each is individuated under its own direct identity rule. The PFR direct pattern states those two participant meanings, its obtaining condition, and its identity rule; the PFR RelationSignature episteme declares the corresponding SlotSpecs. A PFR assertion designates the two occurrences according to those SlotSpecs. PFR is a direct relation, not an episteme whose content merely groups two assertions.
A.6.REL:5.5 - Description and publication recursion through the relation-object architecture
Let R1 be the already individuated second MaintenanceInspectionAssignment occurrence from 5.1.
- An assignment-occurrence description episteme
E1hasR1as its exact EntityOfConcern. In the reusable C.2.1EpistemeConstitutionRelationSignature, the declaration-local SlotKindEntityOfConcernSlotnames the entity-of-concern participant meaning. In a card representation ofE1, the source fieldentityOfConcernRefcorresponds to that SlotKind only through a declared representation correspondence; itsU.EntityRefvalue is the participant designation that resolves toR1. Neither spelling nor containment identifies the field, SlotKind, designation, or occurrence. - A second episteme
E2contains the result of evaluation work concerning the adequacy ofE1. Its exact EntityOfConcern isE1, notR1. A field in a reusable card or other representation may carry aU.EntityRefdesignatingE1; it corresponds toEntityOfConcernSlotonly through a declared representation correspondence. The two epistemes therefore have different EntitiesOfConcern and retain separate C.2.1 identities:E1describesR1, whileE2evaluates the adequacy ofE1. - Under a publication-relation occurrence, the current edition of
E1is available to a declared audience and use. The selected episteme edition is an actual participant of that publication relation under the publication pattern’s participant meaning. The publication form and its representation elements retain their own kinds and correspond to the published episteme only through the declared publication and representation relations.
A system performing revision work can establish another edition of E1 or E2; a system performing publication work can establish another publication-relation occurrence for a selected edition. R1 continues or ceases only as the A.2.1 obtaining predicate and occurrence-identity rule determine from the assignment facts. This recursive case preserves the distinction: a description episteme can itself become the actual participant or EntityOfConcern of another relation without becoming the relation occurrence it describes.