{ "title": "Validate the claim, layer by layer — Standards & citation", "text": "MODAVIS (2026). Validate the claim, layer by layer — Standards & citation. Research notebooks, September 2026 · Connected evidence edition. https://modavis.org/editions/2026-09-r6/standards/conformance/", "bibtex": "@misc{modavis_standards_conformance_2026_09_r6,\n author = {{MODAVIS}},\n title = {Validate the claim, layer by layer — Standards & citation},\n year = {2026},\n month = {09},\n version = {2026-09-r6},\n url = {https://modavis.org/editions/2026-09-r6/standards/conformance/},\n note = {Content SHA-256: 33cbb046319fb8cc3d5f070fa8f30917ccea0637e055bd6e38cf4cc1bb256bed}\n}", "url": "https://modavis.org/editions/2026-09-r6/standards/conformance/", "sha256": "33cbb046319fb8cc3d5f070fa8f30917ccea0637e055bd6e38cf4cc1bb256bed", "edition": "2026-09-r6", "date": "2026-09-26", "canonicalPayload": "{\"book\":{\"number\":\"08\",\"slug\":\"standards\",\"title\":\"Standards & citation\"},\"chapter\":{\"blocks\":[{\"items\":[{\"detail\":\"A continuous worked example: readable explanations, exact records and the limits of each claim.\",\"href\":\"/notebooks/standards/cuntz/\",\"label\":\"Learn this through the Cuntz organ\"}],\"type\":\"links\"},{\"id\":\"validation-layers\",\"text\":\"A sequence of distinct checks\",\"type\":\"heading\"},{\"headers\":[\"Layer\",\"What is checked\",\"A failure it can reveal\"],\"rows\":[[\"Strict parsing\",\"UTF-8 JSON and the standard’s parsing restrictions.\",\"A byte-order mark, duplicate property, non-finite value or invalid encoding.\"],[\"Schema\",\"The pinned JSON Schema contracts with format assertions.\",\"An incorrectly typed field, malformed identifier or unknown field in a closed object.\"],[\"References and semantics\",\"Typed local references, required relationships and semantic constraints.\",\"An unresolved realization reference or an inconsistent relation.\"],[\"Profiles\",\"Mandatory and capability-triggered profile requirements.\",\"An acoustic record without the associated declared requirements being met.\"],[\"Fixity and delivery\",\"Exact manifest and realization identity, carrier descriptors and dependency closure.\",\"A digest mismatch, wrong file identity or missing required realization.\"],[\"Runtime claims\",\"The specified traces and deterministic behavior for the claimed subset.\",\"A result that differs from its expected trace under the defined conditions.\"],[\"Linked data, when claimed\",\"Pinned JSON-LD context processing and relevant SHACL requirements.\",\"A graph that fails the declared linked-data validation contract.\"]],\"type\":\"table\"},{\"text\":\"The normative specification and profiles define the contract; JSON Schema handles only part of it. A reference implementation is valuable evidence of behavior but does not replace the normative documents. Similarly, a generic JSON Schema validator must enable the required format assertions. Passing an easier structural check is not equivalent to completing the specified conformance process.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"boundary\":\"The notebook’s JSON teaching excerpt is deliberately incomplete and is not presented as a complete, independently conforming VAO package.\",\"caseLabel\":\"Cuntz\",\"concept\":\"Conformance means meeting a specified contract. Different checks address parsing, structure, relationships, required capabilities and file identity.\",\"evidence\":\"Illustrative scenario\",\"expanded\":false,\"id\":\"cuntz-conformance\",\"scenario\":\"Take the published observation with value 1281 millimetres. A reader wants to know both whether its record is valid and whether the measurement answers a question about the pipe.\",\"sources\":[{\"detail\":\"Published manifest: identities, measurement observations, realization digests, profiles and rights. Exact examples checked against this release.\",\"href\":\"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22151203\",\"label\":\"Cuntz Positiv · VAO 0.5.0-rc.2\"},{\"detail\":\"The standard contract is separate from the Cuntz dataset content version 0.5.0-rc.2.\",\"href\":\"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22214248\",\"label\":\"VAO Standard 0.5.0\"}],\"steps\":[{\"text\":\"A schema can check that the result has the required form and that a numerical field contains a number. Semantic checks can verify that references point to appropriate records.\",\"title\":\"Check the structure\"},{\"text\":\"Resolve the pipe, measurement activity and workbook realization; verify the cited source bytes. These operations establish what the record says and which source it identifies.\",\"title\":\"Check the evidence links\"},{\"text\":\"The workbook timestamp still is not the measurement-session date. A valid record without a documented calibration uncertainty cannot support an uncertainty claim simply because its schema passed.\",\"title\":\"Assess fitness for the question\"}],\"takeaway\":\"Validation and scientific assessment complement one another; each needs an explicitly stated scope.\",\"title\":\"How can a file pass validation but support a limited conclusion?\",\"type\":\"example\"},{\"id\":\"core-and-capabilities\",\"text\":\"Start with mandatory profiles, then inspect capabilities\",\"type\":\"heading\"},{\"text\":\"Every VAO 0.5.0 object requires Core and Dynamic Delivery, even if its payload is embedded in a single carrier. Additional requirements depend on what the object represents. Scientific records, timebases, physical systems, playable behavior, spatial records and acoustic records bring their corresponding profile obligations. A declaration alone does not prove that the object satisfies the profile or that an application can execute it.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"text\":\"Materialization is a further distinction. A manifest can describe several groups while a local carrier contains only a subset. A consumer must acquire and verify the required groups before claiming a profile is materialized. A metadata-only inspection can succeed without making geometry, audio or an interactive runtime locally available. The validation report should make that state understandable.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"boundary\":\"No acoustics profile or calibrated acoustic response is inferred from the presence of an organ model.\",\"caseLabel\":\"Cuntz\",\"concept\":\"A profile names a set of requirements for a capability. A client’s support describes what an application can do with the object; the two declarations must be compared.\",\"evidence\":\"Released record\",\"expanded\":false,\"id\":\"cuntz-profiles\",\"scenario\":\"The Cuntz manifest declares Core, Dynamic Delivery, Playable, Physical Instrument, Scientific, Multimodal, Spatial and Zenodo Repository profiles under VAO 0.5.0.\",\"sources\":[{\"detail\":\"Published manifest: identities, measurement observations, realization digests, profiles and rights. Exact examples checked against this release.\",\"href\":\"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22151203\",\"label\":\"Cuntz Positiv · VAO 0.5.0-rc.2\"},{\"detail\":\"The standard contract is separate from the Cuntz dataset content version 0.5.0-rc.2.\",\"href\":\"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22214248\",\"label\":\"VAO Standard 0.5.0\"}],\"steps\":[{\"text\":\"The object contains information for several uses, including physical topology, scientific observations and sampled interaction. These requirements describe the package contract.\",\"title\":\"Read the object’s declarations\"},{\"text\":\"The notebook loads a GLB display derivative and provides camera controls. It does not import the full VAO manifest, evaluate its scientific records or execute its keyboard and stop behavior.\",\"title\":\"State the viewer’s operation\"},{\"text\":\"To test sampled playback or synchronized controls, choose a client whose documented version supports the relevant format, profiles and resources. Record the tested operation separately from successful visual loading.\",\"title\":\"Choose another client when the task changes\"}],\"takeaway\":\"A working 3D preview proves that the chosen model can be displayed; it does not establish complete VAO conformance or playability.\",\"title\":\"Does showing the organ in 3D mean the VAO is playable?\",\"type\":\"example\"},{\"id\":\"reference-check\",\"text\":\"Try the standard’s own fixture first\",\"type\":\"heading\"},{\"label\":\"VAO Standard 0.5.0 checkout · after installing its pinned requirements\",\"text\":\"python Tools/vao05.py validate Fixtures/VAO05/workspaces/minimal\\npython Tools/vao05.py validate-release \\\\\\n Fixtures/VAO05/companions/release.example.json \\\\\\n Fixtures/VAO05/workspaces/minimal/vao-manifest.json\",\"type\":\"code\"},{\"text\":\"These documented commands assume the standard’s release checkout as the working directory and its required Python environment. The first checks a supplied workspace fixture; the second checks the example release descriptor against the fixture manifest. They are a starting point for understanding the report. Replace the paths with your own artifacts only after confirming the tool version and the relevant object version.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"id\":\"fixity-boundaries\",\"text\":\"Hash the artifact the specification identifies\",\"type\":\"heading\"},{\"text\":\"Exact manifest bytes are not interchangeable with reserialized JSON. Whitespace or property ordering can change the byte digest even if a parser produces an equivalent object. Other records may prescribe a canonicalization procedure, such as RFC 8785 for the applicable conformance trace. Identify the procedure for each digest. A website chapter fingerprint, a VAO manifest digest and a carrier archive digest serve different objects and must not be substituted for one another.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"text\":\"A consumer should verify downloaded bytes before exposing them as a verified realization. A validator can inspect a carrier without extracting it, and a failed acquisition should remain a failed attempt in the receipt. Successful validation of one carrier does not establish that all externally referenced assets are available. A preservation claim needs the stated closure, not just a readable bootstrap.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"id\":\"reports\",\"text\":\"A useful report says what was not run\",\"type\":\"heading\"},{\"text\":\"Record the standard edition, validator version, input identity, requested checks, results and unperformed checks. Deterministic-runtime trace tests concern their defined offline subset; they do not by themselves demonstrate a complete real-time scheduler, audio engine or haptic system. Linked-data validation applies when that capability is claimed, with the JSON record remaining authoritative under the VAO contract. Finally, technical conformance does not decide whether an acoustic inference or historical attribution is scientifically justified.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"items\":[{\"detail\":\"Interpret what a passed technical check can support.\",\"href\":\"/notebooks/research/evaluation/\",\"label\":\"Evidence and evaluation\"},{\"detail\":\"Identify the acquired bytes and package closure.\",\"href\":\"/notebooks/vao/delivery/\",\"label\":\"Exact delivery and receipts\"}],\"type\":\"links\"}],\"intro\":\"“Valid VAO” needs a version, a scope and a report. VAO 0.5.0 separates structural checks, semantic requirements, asset integrity and the capabilities a consumer claims to implement.\",\"slug\":\"conformance\",\"sources\":[{\"detail\":\"Normative standard, profile index, Dynamic Delivery Profile and conformance specification in the versioned release.\",\"href\":\"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22214248\",\"label\":\"VAO Standard 0.5.0\"}],\"title\":\"Validate the claim, layer by layer\"},\"date\":\"2026-09-26\",\"edition\":\"2026-09-r6\",\"figures\":{}}", "payload": { "edition": "2026-09-r6", "date": "2026-09-26", "book": { "slug": "standards", "title": "Standards & citation", "number": "08" }, "chapter": { "slug": "conformance", "title": "Validate the claim, layer by layer", "intro": "“Valid VAO” needs a version, a scope and a report. VAO 0.5.0 separates structural checks, semantic requirements, asset integrity and the capabilities a consumer claims to implement.", "blocks": [ { "type": "links", "items": [ { "label": "Learn this through the Cuntz organ", "href": "/notebooks/standards/cuntz/", "detail": "A continuous worked example: readable explanations, exact records and the limits of each claim." } ] }, { "type": "heading", "id": "validation-layers", "text": "A sequence of distinct checks" }, { "type": "table", "headers": [ "Layer", "What is checked", "A failure it can reveal" ], "rows": [ [ "Strict parsing", "UTF-8 JSON and the standard’s parsing restrictions.", "A byte-order mark, duplicate property, non-finite value or invalid encoding." ], [ "Schema", "The pinned JSON Schema contracts with format assertions.", "An incorrectly typed field, malformed identifier or unknown field in a closed object." ], [ "References and semantics", "Typed local references, required relationships and semantic constraints.", "An unresolved realization reference or an inconsistent relation." ], [ "Profiles", "Mandatory and capability-triggered profile requirements.", "An acoustic record without the associated declared requirements being met." ], [ "Fixity and delivery", "Exact manifest and realization identity, carrier descriptors and dependency closure.", "A digest mismatch, wrong file identity or missing required realization." ], [ "Runtime claims", "The specified traces and deterministic behavior for the claimed subset.", "A result that differs from its expected trace under the defined conditions." ], [ "Linked data, when claimed", "Pinned JSON-LD context processing and relevant SHACL requirements.", "A graph that fails the declared linked-data validation contract." ] ] }, { "type": "p", "text": "The normative specification and profiles define the contract; JSON Schema handles only part of it. A reference implementation is valuable evidence of behavior but does not replace the normative documents. Similarly, a generic JSON Schema validator must enable the required format assertions. Passing an easier structural check is not equivalent to completing the specified conformance process." }, { "type": "example", "id": "cuntz-conformance", "title": "How can a file pass validation but support a limited conclusion?", "concept": "Conformance means meeting a specified contract. Different checks address parsing, structure, relationships, required capabilities and file identity.", "scenario": "Take the published observation with value 1281 millimetres. A reader wants to know both whether its record is valid and whether the measurement answers a question about the pipe.", "steps": [ { "title": "Check the structure", "text": "A schema can check that the result has the required form and that a numerical field contains a number. Semantic checks can verify that references point to appropriate records." }, { "title": "Check the evidence links", "text": "Resolve the pipe, measurement activity and workbook realization; verify the cited source bytes. These operations establish what the record says and which source it identifies." }, { "title": "Assess fitness for the question", "text": "The workbook timestamp still is not the measurement-session date. A valid record without a documented calibration uncertainty cannot support an uncertainty claim simply because its schema passed." } ], "takeaway": "Validation and scientific assessment complement one another; each needs an explicitly stated scope.", "boundary": "The notebook’s JSON teaching excerpt is deliberately incomplete and is not presented as a complete, independently conforming VAO package.", "sources": [ { "label": "Cuntz Positiv · VAO 0.5.0-rc.2", "href": "https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22151203", "detail": "Published manifest: identities, measurement observations, realization digests, profiles and rights. Exact examples checked against this release." }, { "label": "VAO Standard 0.5.0", "href": "https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22214248", "detail": "The standard contract is separate from the Cuntz dataset content version 0.5.0-rc.2." } ], "expanded": false, "caseLabel": "Cuntz", "evidence": "Illustrative scenario" }, { "type": "heading", "id": "core-and-capabilities", "text": "Start with mandatory profiles, then inspect capabilities" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Every VAO 0.5.0 object requires Core and Dynamic Delivery, even if its payload is embedded in a single carrier. Additional requirements depend on what the object represents. Scientific records, timebases, physical systems, playable behavior, spatial records and acoustic records bring their corresponding profile obligations. A declaration alone does not prove that the object satisfies the profile or that an application can execute it." }, { "type": "p", "text": "Materialization is a further distinction. A manifest can describe several groups while a local carrier contains only a subset. A consumer must acquire and verify the required groups before claiming a profile is materialized. A metadata-only inspection can succeed without making geometry, audio or an interactive runtime locally available. The validation report should make that state understandable." }, { "type": "example", "id": "cuntz-profiles", "title": "Does showing the organ in 3D mean the VAO is playable?", "concept": "A profile names a set of requirements for a capability. A client’s support describes what an application can do with the object; the two declarations must be compared.", "scenario": "The Cuntz manifest declares Core, Dynamic Delivery, Playable, Physical Instrument, Scientific, Multimodal, Spatial and Zenodo Repository profiles under VAO 0.5.0.", "steps": [ { "title": "Read the object’s declarations", "text": "The object contains information for several uses, including physical topology, scientific observations and sampled interaction. These requirements describe the package contract." }, { "title": "State the viewer’s operation", "text": "The notebook loads a GLB display derivative and provides camera controls. It does not import the full VAO manifest, evaluate its scientific records or execute its keyboard and stop behavior." }, { "title": "Choose another client when the task changes", "text": "To test sampled playback or synchronized controls, choose a client whose documented version supports the relevant format, profiles and resources. Record the tested operation separately from successful visual loading." } ], "takeaway": "A working 3D preview proves that the chosen model can be displayed; it does not establish complete VAO conformance or playability.", "boundary": "No acoustics profile or calibrated acoustic response is inferred from the presence of an organ model.", "sources": [ { "label": "Cuntz Positiv · VAO 0.5.0-rc.2", "href": "https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22151203", "detail": "Published manifest: identities, measurement observations, realization digests, profiles and rights. Exact examples checked against this release." }, { "label": "VAO Standard 0.5.0", "href": "https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22214248", "detail": "The standard contract is separate from the Cuntz dataset content version 0.5.0-rc.2." } ], "expanded": false, "caseLabel": "Cuntz", "evidence": "Released record" }, { "type": "heading", "id": "reference-check", "text": "Try the standard’s own fixture first" }, { "type": "code", "label": "VAO Standard 0.5.0 checkout · after installing its pinned requirements", "text": "python Tools/vao05.py validate Fixtures/VAO05/workspaces/minimal\npython Tools/vao05.py validate-release \\\n Fixtures/VAO05/companions/release.example.json \\\n Fixtures/VAO05/workspaces/minimal/vao-manifest.json" }, { "type": "p", "text": "These documented commands assume the standard’s release checkout as the working directory and its required Python environment. The first checks a supplied workspace fixture; the second checks the example release descriptor against the fixture manifest. They are a starting point for understanding the report. Replace the paths with your own artifacts only after confirming the tool version and the relevant object version." }, { "type": "heading", "id": "fixity-boundaries", "text": "Hash the artifact the specification identifies" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Exact manifest bytes are not interchangeable with reserialized JSON. Whitespace or property ordering can change the byte digest even if a parser produces an equivalent object. Other records may prescribe a canonicalization procedure, such as RFC 8785 for the applicable conformance trace. Identify the procedure for each digest. A website chapter fingerprint, a VAO manifest digest and a carrier archive digest serve different objects and must not be substituted for one another." }, { "type": "p", "text": "A consumer should verify downloaded bytes before exposing them as a verified realization. A validator can inspect a carrier without extracting it, and a failed acquisition should remain a failed attempt in the receipt. Successful validation of one carrier does not establish that all externally referenced assets are available. A preservation claim needs the stated closure, not just a readable bootstrap." }, { "type": "heading", "id": "reports", "text": "A useful report says what was not run" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Record the standard edition, validator version, input identity, requested checks, results and unperformed checks. Deterministic-runtime trace tests concern their defined offline subset; they do not by themselves demonstrate a complete real-time scheduler, audio engine or haptic system. Linked-data validation applies when that capability is claimed, with the JSON record remaining authoritative under the VAO contract. Finally, technical conformance does not decide whether an acoustic inference or historical attribution is scientifically justified." }, { "type": "links", "items": [ { "label": "Evidence and evaluation", "href": "/notebooks/research/evaluation/", "detail": "Interpret what a passed technical check can support." }, { "label": "Exact delivery and receipts", "href": "/notebooks/vao/delivery/", "detail": "Identify the acquired bytes and package closure." } ] } ], "sources": [ { "label": "VAO Standard 0.5.0", "href": "https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22214248", "detail": "Normative standard, profile index, Dynamic Delivery Profile and conformance specification in the versioned release." } ] }, "figures": {} } }