ONTOLOGY PROTOCOLS

05. Ontological Graph Deployment Protocol

Revision 1.2

1. Purpose

The Ontological Graph Deployment Protocol establishes the rules for transition from semantic units, logical constructions, referential relations, epistemic statuses, and ontological distinctions defined in Documents 01–04 to a unified connected system of representation. Its task is not to determine the structure of Reality itself, but the architecture by which the system can represent concepts, relations, and assertions about Reality while preserving distinctions among levels of meaning and status. The ontological graph is not Reality and must not be regarded as its identical copy. Graph ≠ Reality. The graph represents a structured system of semantic units and assertions, some of which may claim to describe states of affairs in Reality. Therefore, the presence of a construction in the graph does not by itself establish either the existence of its referent or the truth of an assertion associated with it.

2. Semantic Unit and Its Representation in the Graph

Document 01 defines a semantic unit as distinguishable content to which definiteness may be attributed and which may enter into relations and receive a modal status. Protocol 05 does not introduce a new fundamental category of “ontological node” alongside it. When a semantic unit is included in the graph, it receives a graph representation that allows it to be stably addressed, connected with other units, and used in constructing assertions. A semantic unit is definite content. A graph representation of a semantic unit is a means of addressing it and including it in a connected system. Graph representation does not change the ontological status of the content. If the graph represents the concepts “electron,” “number,” “unicorn,” “possible state,” or “hypothesis,” their mere presence does not imply that their referents exist in Reality in the same way or exist at all.

3. Addressability

To participate in the graph, a semantic unit must be addressable. Addressability means the ability to stably distinguish this unit from other units of the system and refer to it unambiguously regardless of its particular display location, linguistic designation, or current classification. Addressability is not proof of the existence of a referent. It is a property of the representation system. Identity of representation ≠ identity of referent. The same referent may have several historical or linguistic representations, while several different semantic units may erroneously claim the same referent. Establishing their identity requires separate grounds.

4. Relation Type and Specific Link

A relation as definite content must be distinguished from a specific application of that relation. For example, the relation “part–whole” may be defined as a relation type. heart → is part of → organism. This construction represents a specific application of that relation type. The relation type defines the meaning and admissible structure of the link. A specific link connects definite semantic units by means of that relation type. The mere construction of a link does not yet determine its status relative to Reality. A link may belong to a semantic system, classification, model, hypothesis, or may claim to describe an actual state of affairs. These cases must not be merged.

5. Link and Assertion

Not every link among semantic units is an assertion about Reality. Semantic units may be connected within a definition, classification, model, language, historical conception, or fictional construction. For example, classifying a unicorn as a mythological creature is not equivalent to asserting the existence of unicorns as a biological species. When a connected semantic construction is represented as a state of affairs, it forms an assertion. Semantic units → Structured link → Assertion about a state of affairs. The transition from link to assertion must not occur implicitly.

6. Assertion as an Addressable Construction

An assertion must be independently addressable. This is necessary because the assertion itself may have a source, context, conditions of applicability, grounds, reference, truth status, epistemic status, history of change, and other assertions related to it. Addressability of an assertion does not eliminate the distinction between an assertion and a concept. The fact that both have identifiers or can become objects of subsequent description does not make them the same type of semantic construction. An assertion may itself become the subject of a further assertion. For example, the system may assert that a proposition was formulated by a particular author, belongs to a particular model, has confirmation limited to particular conditions, or remains of unknown status. Assertion about an object ≠ assertion about an assertion. This corresponds to the distinction between object-level and meta-level established by the Logical Protocol.

7. Basic Record Architecture

In the graph, semantic units and typed links form a structured assertion. Reference, context, grounds, and corresponding statuses may be associated with the assertion. Semantic units + typed links → structured assertion. Assertion → {reference, context, grounds, statuses}. This notation does not specify a temporal, causal, or cognitive sequence. It describes the architecture of structured knowledge representation in the graph. The cognitive chain established by Document 03 remains unchanged: Reality → Manifestation → Observation → Data → Representation → Interpretation → Model → Assertion → Justification → Knowledge Status. The process of obtaining knowledge must therefore be distinguished from the architecture of representing knowledge.

8. Separation of Graph Levels

The graph must not turn different kinds of relations into one unmarked space of links. At minimum, the distinction among semantic, logical, referential, epistemic, and ontological levels must be preserved. A semantic link shows relations among contents. A logical link concerns the structure of assertions and inference. A referential link establishes the directedness of content toward a presumed referent. An epistemic link concerns grounds, confirmations, refutations, and knowledge statuses. An ontological link claims to represent a relation that obtains in Reality. Coincidence of the verbal designation of a link at different levels does not mean identity of its function. Semantic status ≠ logical status ≠ epistemic status ≠ ontological status. Status is not automatically transferred from one level to another.

9. Typing of Relations

Every link must have a definite type. The generalized link “related to” may be used only where the character of the relation is genuinely not yet established. It must not replace a known relation type. When introducing a new type, it is necessary to establish what exactly it distinguishes; between what kinds of units it applies; what properties belong to it; what properties do not belong to it; and whether it can be expressed by an existing construction without semantic loss. A new relation type must not be introduced merely for convenience of notation. If the proposed relation can be fully represented through existing relations and operations, it is treated as a composite construction.

10. Classification Relations

Classification must not automatically be identified with the structure of Reality. Relations such as “instance of class,” “subclass of class,” and “specialization of concept” organize the representation system and may be used in assertions about Reality when there are separate grounds for such use. However, the structure of a classification system is not by itself proof of a corresponding structure of Reality. Classification scheme ≠ proven ontological structure. It is especially important to distinguish the relation of an instance to a class from the relation of one class to a more general class. These relations must not be designated by one undifferentiated type.

11. Part and Whole

The part–whole relation has its own structural meaning and must not automatically be reduced to spatial containment of one object within another. Being located inside an object does not mean belonging to it as a part. Likewise, belonging of a part to a whole is not necessarily exhausted by a spatial relation. The part–whole relation must be preserved as a distinguishable working type of link until the possibility of reducing it without semantic loss is established. Its properties, including possible inheritance and transitivity, must not be assumed universally across all domains without separate definition.

12. Causal Link

Causality retains the status established by Document 04. It is not automatically reduced to sequence, correlation, joint change, or a general structural link. In the graph, causality is represented as a special type of ontological relation only where an assertion genuinely claims to describe causal dependence. The causal graph does not form a separate ontology. It represents a specialized projection of the general ontological graph in which assertions and relations of causal type are selected. Ontological graph → causal projection. Membership of a link in the causal projection does not raise its epistemic status. A hypothetical causal link remains hypothetical within the causal projection. The causal projection shows the causal structure represented by the system; it does not create a second independent description of Reality.

13. Composite Relations

Not every substantively important relation should become an elementary graph type. Origin may include a preceding state, process, causal dependence, subsequent state, and criterion of continuity. Transformation may include an initial state, change, process, final state, and a condition for preservation or change of identity. Function may include a carrier, process or capacity, result, and the relation of the result to the organization of the system. Therefore, origin, transformation, and function are not declared elementary relations in advance. Their internal structure must be investigated before deciding their status in the graph.

14. Modal Relations

Logical admissibility of a state of affairs does not mean its ontological possibility. Admissibility within a model must therefore be distinguished from an assertion of ontological possibility. If a model admits a state, this establishes a property of the model but does not by itself establish the possibility of that state in Reality. Ontological possibility remains a separate problem until its ground is determined.

15. Context, Conditions, Time, and Scale

An assertion may be correct only relative to specified conditions. The graph must therefore allow explicit representation of context. This may include conditions of observation, time interval, scale of consideration, scope of model applicability, state of the system, and other parameters without which the content of the assertion changes. Context must not be hidden inside wording where changing it can change the status of the assertion. If a relation cannot be adequately represented by a simple binary link between two units, it must not be artificially reduced to such a link. The graph must allow constructions with multiple participants and different roles.

16. Multiplicity of Projections

A semantic unit need not have a single absolute place in the overall system. The same unit may simultaneously be considered with respect to composition, origin, structure, causal dependence, function, level of organization, process, model, and epistemic ground. The overall architecture must therefore not be constructed as a single tree. A tree is one possible projection of the graph constructed according to a selected relation type. Graph → set of admissible projections. Different projections do not create different entities if the identity of the addressable semantic unit is preserved.

17. Reference and Ontological Claim

The graph contains representations, not the referents themselves. The link between a semantic unit and what it is presumed to designate must therefore be represented separately. If an assertion claims to describe Reality, that claim must be explicit. An assertion cannot be considered ontological merely because it is recorded in an ontological graph. It is necessary to distinguish the content of the assertion; its presumed referent; the grounds for correlation; and the status of the assertion. Thus, the structure of the database does not acquire the right to automatically determine the structure of Reality.

18. Justification and Source

The source of an assertion and the grounds for accepting it are not the same thing. A source shows the origin of the represented content. Justification shows why an assertion is assigned a particular epistemic status. Authority of a source does not by itself establish the truth of an assertion. Multiple sources also do not automatically turn an assertion into established knowledge if they depend on one original basis or reproduce the same interpretation. Source, grounds, and status must therefore be stored as distinguishable elements of the architecture.

19. Uncertainty and Semantic Gap

Absence of established knowledge is an admissible state of the graph. If the system does not know what a relation means, whether a referent exists, what the mechanism is, what the source is, what the grounds are, or how two semantic units are related, this absence must not automatically be filled with the most probable interpretation. Substantive unknown, absence of service metadata, and inapplicability of a characteristic must be distinguished. “Unknown” denotes substantive absence of an established answer to the question posed. If the issue concerns the truth of an assertion, epistemic status U is used in the sense of the Logical Protocol. “Status not assigned” or “status not defined” denotes the state of the graph record itself. “Not applicable” means that the corresponding type of evaluation does not apply to the given object or assertion. Unknown ≠ status not assigned ≠ not applicable. A semantic gap is information about the boundary of the system’s current knowledge. It is not permission to complete missing content by analogy, statistical probability, familiar classification, or external tradition.

20. Identity and Change

An evolving graph must preserve the distinction between a change in representation and a change in the defined content itself. Refining wording does not necessarily create a new semantic unit. But a change in which the former and new content cease to be the same concept must not be hidden as an ordinary revision of a definition. The system must therefore preserve a history of changes and make it possible to establish exactly what was changed. Criteria of persistent identity, versioning, splitting and merging of concepts, and transition from change to metamorphosis must be established by a separate protocol. A change in a record must not conceal a change in meaning.

21. Rules for Graph Expansion

Deployment of the graph must not be reduced to accumulation of new terms and links. A new construction is introduced when there is distinguishable content that cannot be adequately represented by existing means without substantial semantic loss. Before introducing a new element, it is necessary to check whether its content is defined; whether it is distinguishable from existing units; whether the level to which it belongs is established; whether the types of its links are defined; whether different statuses are being conflated within it; whether it is a composite construction mistakenly treated as elementary; and whether it fills an uncertainty with an assumption without explicit marking. Expansion of the graph must increase its discriminating capacity, not merely the number of elements.

22. Rule of Preservation of Distinctions

If two contents, relations, or statuses have different functions or grounds, they must remain distinguished until the possibility of their reduction is demonstrated separately. Similarity of result is not sufficient grounds for identification. Semantic unit ≠ its referent. Relation ≠ assertion about a relation. Classification ≠ ontological structure. Sequence ≠ causality. Source ≠ justification. Truth status ≠ epistemic status. Change of definition ≠ change of concept. Representation of Reality ≠ Reality.

23. Architectural Openness

The current architecture of the graph is not declared final. If new content cannot be represented by existing constructions without loss of an essential distinction, the limitation of the architecture itself must be investigated. In such a case, the preferred response is not forced reduction of new content to existing categories, but examination of whether the graph structure needs to be expanded or transformed. Development of the ontology may therefore affect not only its content but also the ways in which that content is organized. The architecture must preserve the possibility of its own change.

24. Fundamental Limitations

The presence of a semantic unit does not imply the existence of its referent. The presence of a link does not imply the truth of an assertion. Classification does not imply the structure of Reality. Logical consistency does not imply truth. Logical admissibility does not imply ontological possibility. Justification of an assertion does not imply fundamentality of the phenomenon it describes. A source does not imply truth. Absence of a definition does not imply a right to complete it. The structure of the graph does not imply an identical structure of Reality.

25. Final Principle

The ontological graph of the Creative Causality Research Center represents neither a catalog of things nor a final map of Reality, but an evolving architecture of distinguishable meanings, typed links, and addressable assertions. Its task is to make explicit: what exactly is asserted; what it is asserted about; by what relation the contents are connected; under what conditions the assertion applies; on what grounds it is accepted; what its current status is; and what remains unknown in the system. Thus, the graph must not eliminate the boundary between knowledge and Reality, but preserve it in its very architecture. The more precisely the system distinguishes what it represents, what it asserts, what it knows, and what it does not yet know, the lower the probability that its own structure of representation will be mistakenly taken for the structure of Reality itself.

Architectural Clarifications CCO_1.2

These clarifications are a normative part of Revision 1.2 and specify §§2–3, 4–8, and 19 without changing the remaining provisions of Revision 1.1.

3.1. Addressability and Identity Spaces

An addressable semantic unit receives a persistent Semantic Unit ID. A concept is a specialized semantic unit and uses Concept ID as a specialized Semantic Unit ID. An independently addressable statement also belongs to the Semantic Unit space. No universal “node ID” is introduced that would substitute for distinctions among entity types.

8.1. Independent Dimensions of CCO

The CCO architecture distinguishes five independent but connected identity spaces: Object ID <-> Class ID <-> Domain ID <-> Semantic Unit ID <-> Semantic Structure ID. They are not stages of a single hierarchy and must not be interpreted as levels of one tree. The term “graph level” in §8 refers to functional layers of relations and statuses, not to these identity spaces.

7.1. Relation != Statement

Relation defines the type, semantics, and admissible structure of a link. Statement records a specific asserted application of a relation to definite semantic units in a given context. The presence of a Relation does not automatically create a Statement; the presence of a Statement does not turn a specific application into a new Relation type.

19.1. Separation of Statuses

Truth status, epistemic status, applicability of truth evaluation, and graph-record state are independent coordinates: T/F != K_T/K_F/U != applicable/N/A != status not assigned. N/A is neither a truth value nor an epistemic value. “Status not assigned” describes the state of the record, not the content of knowledge. In the machine-readable representation, these coordinates are stored separately and connected by typed relations.

Canonical Consequence

The identity of semantic content is not determined by its current classification, domain, source, position in the graph, or inclusion in a particular Semantic Structure. The CCO graph is a multidimensional typed representation system, not a single classification hierarchy.

← 04. Upper Architecture of the Ontology of Reality  ·  Ontology Protocols