fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 107818–107827

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 05:29:54 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 05:30:57 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 07:35:20 UTC

F.9:11 - Micro-examples

The labels below are readable aliases. An actual case resolves exact F.17 cells and tests one profile before stating a proposed use.

  1. Participant versus Agent. A Partial-overlap Bridge may obtain between the exact BPMN and PROV senses. A separate claim may affirm use of the label “actor” in one orientation table under a rule that preserves the stated participation distinction. That claim creates no local system-role kind or assignment occurrence.
  2. Process design versus Activity occurrence. A Design-spec-to-run-occurrence Bridge may explain the semantic connection. A separate claim can bound an explanatory use; it does not identify a run occurrence from a design artefact.
  3. Observation versus SLO fulfilment. A Measurement-evidence-for Bridge can relate the exact senses. A separate claim asks whether the observation sense is suitable for interpreting one named SLO comparison. A.10 handles ordinary evidence reliance; when an actual named assurance claim is current, B.3 supplies its bounded result for that use.
  4. Subtype across OWL and a curated taxonomy. An Equivalence Bridge obtains only under a profile whose relation condition includes the required class-level invariants. A separate claim asks whether one exact type-structure row may use that Bridge under its stated rule and zero material-loss tolerance.
  5. Accuracy in metrology versus data quality. A Partial-overlap Bridge can make the shared word intelligible. A bounded-use claim may affirm that the label is suitable in one explanatory table while rejecting transfer of measurement methods or values.