Library.Reference:10 - What justifies another pattern, DPF, Suite or LPF
The Library’s boundaries follow useful constructions and their subjects. A new topic or an awkward folder location is a reason to inspect the architecture, not a sufficient reason for another framework.
FPF E.4.DPF and FPF E.4.PFAD compare the recurring problems, available full Methods, their connections and the independently useful result. That comparison can retain an adequate supplier, improve its explanation, add a missing Method, regroup a developed field or identify another field. Existing elementary operations do not prevent a new composition; a useful summary does not establish one.
| Proposed contribution | What gives it the corresponding boundary |
|---|---|
| A new or revised pattern | A recurring problem and reproducible construction with its own useful result, conditions and cases; an existing owner is preferable when the addition completes that owner’s promised result. |
| A DPF | A coherent domain problem family with constructive Methods, a usable first field account, domain knowledge and evidence practice, and a justified boundary for later change. |
| A DPF Suite | A composite discipline established through C.20, constituent DPFs and developed whole connections; more patterns or more cited suppliers do not supply that construction. |
| An LPF | Guidance for a bounded local practice, such as an organization, project, tool arrangement or practitioner setting, using applicable Core and domain contributions under its actual local conditions. |
| An Architectural Reference | A needed public account of an existing whole, its architecture, alternatives, connections and returns. The underlying Methods remain developed at their substantive owners. |
| A pedagogical companion or tool | Learning support or an operational means of access, calculation or checking with its own intended use and limits. |
An LPF can select local responsibilities, tools and working arrangements without turning those choices into universal rules. A domain framework can receive an existing Method or split into better field descriptions; novelty of every operation is not the test of its identity. A proposed Suite must explain the larger field’s actual knowledge-practice coupling and its continuity through permissible changes.
The consequential comparison is what each boundary changes in obtaining, understanding, adapting and maintaining a useful result. Shared content can reduce duplicate explanation while increasing reliance on access and compatible sources. Independent variants can preserve necessary differences at the cost of maintaining them. A new framework is warranted when its field and useful whole justify that burden, not merely when a name is available.