F.9:12 - Worked example and application sketches

F.9:12.0 - Two display glossaries

This constructed case supplies its complete local meanings. Display scheme A has the closed value domain {0, 1, 2} and uses high exactly for value 2. Display scheme B has the same closed domain and uses high exactly for values 1 and 2. These sentences are the complete glossary definitions for this case; no claim about a real measurement scale or acceptance status is made.

Cell A is <scheme A by value, high, value = 2>; cell B is <scheme B by value, high, value = 1 or value = 2>. The different sense claims give different semantic-context projections. Each glossary definition directly supports its cell’s exact claim under that scheme, so its F.17 LocalSenseBasisRelation can be cited separately.

Profile P declares Narrower-than, oriented A → B. Its relation condition is proper inclusion of the admitted values; it applies only to the two complete definitions printed above. The Boolean test is {2} ⊂ {1, 2}: 0 belongs to neither set, 1 only to B’s set, and 2 to both. The closed domain and both membership rules are its required dependencies; an absent or unresolved rule stops the test. All dependencies are present and the test is true, so the exact Bridge b obtains for these cells and P.

Now propose two uses. For the first, u is to explain that every A-high value is B-high; d is A → B; r is membership implication for each value in the closed domain; t permits no counterexample. The C.2.1 claim about b is affirmative. For the second, u is to replace B-high by A-high in the same explanation; d is B → A; r again requires membership implication for every value; t again permits no counterexample. Value 1 defeats that rule, so this claim is negative while b remains unchanged.

For reliance on this bounded explanation, the A.10 descriptive account cites the two exact glossary definitions, their independently established cell-basis relations, and the complete three-value comparison. Those inputs supply the evidence required by these membership rules; pass is limited to this explanation of the printed definitions. No actual named assurance claim is current. The first result is one obtaining Bridge and two separately warranted use claims, not a published glossary, an operational classification or performed Work. No Card is needed for this one-case explanation.

Sections 12.1–12.4 are application sketches. Their external source labels and profile placeholders must be replaced by exact cells, rules, dependencies and evidence before an actual positive Bridge or passing reliance is claimed.

F.9:12.1 - Service target and monitoring observation

A service team resolves two exact cells: the ITIL sense of an availability target and the SOSA sense of an availability observation. Profile P-SLO-OBS-v2 states a Measurement-evidence-for semantic relation: the observation sense concerns a measured availability quantity relevant to the target sense, while observation and target remain different kinds of claim. The profile names the endpoint readings, direction of the semantic relation, applicability to the cited editions, Boolean condition, and required quantity-definition dependency. Current meanings satisfy it, so Bridge b-slo-obs obtains.

The team next proposes use u-slo-check: compare one observation result with the target. Direction d-slo is observation-to-target; rule r-slo requires the same quantity kind, aligned windows, and the stated unit conversion; tolerance t-slo permits the named rounding loss but no quantity-kind change. A C.2.1 claim with EntityOfConcern b-slo-obs states affirmative polarity for <u-slo-check,d-slo,r-slo,t-slo>.

Because this is an ordinary bounded evidence use and no assurance claim is made, the team recovers the descriptive A.10 evidence-provenance path for the observation record, checks the independently established direct relations it cites, and states RelianceDisposition=pass only for u-slo-check. That supports reliance within its boundary. It does not make the SLO fulfilled, authorize acceptance, or prove that comparison Work occurred.

F.9:12.2 - Behavioral participant and access role

An exact Partial-overlap Bridge obtains between a BPMN participant sense and a named RBAC role sense when the profile’s overlap and difference conditions are satisfied. A separate bounded-use claim proposes the label “actor” for one glossary row, in the stated direction, under a rule that preserves assignment moment, enforcement locus, multiplicity, and accountability differences, with zero tolerance for reading the label as a local system-role kind or assignment occurrence. Current evidence can support that label use under A.10.

When a later claim uses the RBAC source word role, apply E.10.ROLE and first say whether it concerns access, permission, authority, a work-facing classification, an assignment, or performed Work. For access, permission, or authority, use the direct pattern for that relation. Use A.2.8.PER for granted permission while keeping actual access separate. If access wording still hides the subject or relation, use A.6.P:4.11a; if the participants and predicate are clear but no direct pattern defines the relation, return A.6.RCD missing-governor[direct access relation].

A work-facing classification separately requires an admitted System, one exact local system-role kind with its KindSignature, and the C.3.2 classification judgment under A.2 and C.3. Use F.4 only when the receiving use separately needs a SystemRoleKindDescription episteme, and F.5 only when it needs a durable designation. An assignment claim then separately identifies an occurrence of a directly declared species under U.SystemRoleAssignment through A.2.1.

If performed Work is also claimed, recover every exact actual performer through A.13 and use A.15.1 to identify the dated Work, exact Method, time, and containing System independently. Use F.6 only when the Bridge account or receiving use expressly represents precise assignment-bound attribution through the same obtaining assignment already established by A.13, and the direct case fact links that exact Work-assignment pair. Missing or failed F.6 leaves the Work intact. The Bridge, bounded-use claim, and reliance result establish none of these facts.

F.9:12.3 - Subtype notions in one structural row

The endpoint senses are OWL2:SubClassOf under a cited OWL profile and curated-taxonomy is-a under one named taxonomy edition. The Bridge profile states Equivalence and makes its direct relation predicate true only when both endpoint meanings use compatible class-level reasoning and satisfy the stated acyclicity and anti-symmetry conditions. When those facts and dependencies are current, the exact Bridge obtains.

A second premise is still required. The C.2.1 claim names the proposed type-structure row, its source-to-receiving direction, the rule that preserves the three invariants, and zero material-loss tolerance. Only an affirmative current claim with passing A.10 reliance, or, when an actual named assurance claim is current, a B.3 AssuranceResult for the same use with disposition=supported-for-use, supports relying on the row. A contradicted relation invariant makes the Bridge predicate false; a use-specific tolerance failure can instead make the bounded-use claim negative while the Bridge remains unchanged.

F.9:12.4 - Setpoint versus service target

CTRL:setpoint and ITIL:target share a familiar word but usually have only Partial-overlap or are Disjoint under the exact readings. A proposed substitution in a control calculation receives a negative bounded-use claim because its rule and tolerance cannot preserve the physical-reference meaning. A didactic comparison may receive a different affirmative claim. Neither claim changes which Bridge obtains.