F.2:11 - Further recognition cues

The entries in this section are possible readings to inspect, not completed lexical notes. Recover each exact source basis before relying on the proposed gloss.

F.2:11.1 - Enactment and sensing

Use the completed PROV-O note as one source-backed input. The BPMN, SOSA/SSN and ITIL cues still need their exact source bases before they can be used as lexical notes. After that recovery, a writer can ask how an SOSA observation result relates to an ITIL service target; the list itself establishes no sameness between BPMN process and PROV activity.

F.2:11.2 - Control and services

• State-space control source, cited passage and scheme — actuation; Plain control output; claim: “A signal applied to influence plant state or output.”
• IEC 61131-3, cited runtime passage and scheme — task; Plain scheduled program execution; claim as above.
• ITIL 4 (2020), incident-management use — incident; Plain reported service disruption; claim: “An unplanned interruption or reduction in service quality.”

This prevents a plant fault from becoming an ITIL incident merely because a writer wants one word for both.

F.2:11.3 - Kind, method, and knowledge sources

• OWL 2 profile source — subClassOf; Plain class inclusion; claim: “Every instance of the first class is an instance of the second.”
• FCA source — formal concept; Plain extent–intent pair; claim: “A maximal object–attribute pair under the stated Galois connection.”
• SPEM 2.0 and ISO 24744 sources — method; Plain way of doing; claim recovered from the cited method passage.
• SOSA/SSN (2017) — procedure; Plain observation recipe; claim: “A description of how an observation may be carried out.”

The notes do not turn an FCA concept into a root kind or a procedure description into a Method. Those are separate claims under their direct patterns.