fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 106283–106324

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 07:42:37 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 07:43:27 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 07:45:10 UTC

F.3:12 - Worked example and recognition cues

Section 12.2 supplies one source-grounded clustering case. The other entries are recognition cues for possible clusters and boundaries; recover their exact editions, passages and interpretation bases before treating them as completed LocalSenseClaims.

F.3:12.1 - BPMN 2.0

Process (workflow graph). Claim: a graph of flow nodes and sequence flows that specifies orchestration among participants. Supporting expressions may include process, process model, and business process where the cited passages use them for the diagram. Counterexample: “this process took five minutes” describes an occurrence, not this design claim.

Event (node). Claim: a typed diagram node marking starts, ends, or intermediates. Counterexample: “the outage event happened at 13:05” describes an occurrence.

F.3:12.2 - PROV-O

Receiving question. Which of prov:Activity, http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#Activity and prov:Agent can share one local meaning?

Source basis. W3C PROV-O Recommendation, 30 April 2013, §1.3 fixes the prov namespace; §3.1 states the class meanings; §4.1 gives the class IRIs. The effective scheme is that edition’s PROV-O vocabulary.

Activity. Consolidate the prefixed name and its full IRI: both address the class whose Tech label is activity (PROV-O) and Plain label is occurrence that acts on or with entities. LocalSenseClaim: an occurrence over an interval that acts on or with entities. A sorting algorithm as a reusable way of doing is not thereby such an occurrence.

Agent. Keep a separate local meaning. Tech agent (PROV-O); Plain responsible participant. LocalSenseClaim: something responsible for an activity, an entity’s existence or another agent’s activity. An RBAC permission role is not thereby a PROV agent.

The namespace expansion supports the alias consolidation; the temporal-occurrence and responsibility meanings remain separate. These two local claims answer the receiving question; an F.17 address is added only for a later recurring use.

F.3:12.3 - ITIL 4

Service-level objective and SLO. One claim may consolidate the full form and abbreviation when the cited edition uses them interchangeably: a target value or range for a service characteristic. Counterexample: an observed availability value is evidence, not the target.

Incident. Claim: an unplanned interruption or reduction in service quality. Counterexample: a plant sensor fault is not an ITIL incident unless another relation is separately established.

F.3:12.4 - SOSA/SSN

Observation. Claim: an act applying a procedure to a feature of interest to obtain a result. Counterexample: “20 °C” is a result value, not the observation act.

F.3:12.5 - OWL 2

SubClassOf. Claim: every instance of one class is an instance of another. Counterexample: rdf:type relates an individual to a class.

EquivalentClasses. Claim: two class expressions have the same instances under the OWL semantics. Counterexample: owl:sameAs is individual identity.

F.3:12.6 - IEC 61131-3

Task. Claim: a cyclic or event-driven runtime unit that invokes programs. Counterexample: a control algorithm or program description is not the task occurrence.