Key idea & worked example
A processing candidate is a proposed interpretation of source material. Review and publication are additional decisions, with their own evidence and responsibilities.
Automation can propose a useful structure; an accountable workflow keeps the interpretation and its grounds inspectable.See the worked example →On this page
| Component | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| Initiator | Shared schemas, migrations, integrity and data governance. |
| Aggregator | Approved source acquisition, transfer preparation and evidence retention. |
| Processor | Staging, normalization candidates, analysis and controlled canonical projection. |
| Prospector | Discovery of provisional literature, media and authority evidence. |
| Navigator | Source-aware public research projections and citations. |
| Persistor | Approved packaging, deposition and persistent identifiers. |
The framework distinguishes original source evidenceEvidenceMaterial offered as grounds for a claim. Its relevance depends on the claim, context, transmission and interpretation.Work through the Cuntz example →, inference, canonical representation, dissemination and preservation. A public view is a projection of a data state; browsing that view should not silently rewrite the underlying evidence.
Supporting components
Monitor observes status and freshness without changing research data or running jobs. The musiXplora Bridge imports and explores versioned person snapshots. These components complement the six core responsibilities.
Trace one statement through the framework
Consider a source page that attributes a renovation to a named workshop. Acquisition first preserves the page and its source contextContextThe circumstances within which a statement applies, such as a historical configuration. Context is distinct from the history of how the statement was recorded.Work through the Cuntz example →. Processing can extract the statement, propose a normalized actor identity and attach a candidate role. A reviewed decision determines whether that interpretation becomes part of a canonical projectionCanonical projectionAn accepted, governed research view derived from evidence and decisions. It can support convenient use while retaining a route to the richer underlying account.Work through the Cuntz example →. Public exploration then presents the attributed result; release preparation fixes a publishable state.
| Boundary | What crosses it |
|---|---|
| Discovery → acquisition | A candidate source or update proposal, not an accepted historical fact. |
| Acquisition → processing | Identified source evidence and documented transfer records. |
| Processing → canonical projection | An explicitly reviewed interpretation with its supporting evidence. |
| Projection → public access | A research view retaining attribution and qualifications. |
| Approved output → preservation | A checked, versioned package with persistent release information. |
Where does an extracted number become an accepted claim?
A processing candidate is a proposed interpretation of source material. Review and publication are additional decisions, with their own evidence and responsibilities.
- ProcessingCandidate resultAn algorithm produces an attributable output.review the candidate
- ReviewCheck the evidenceA reviewer can accept, reject or defer.publish the scoped result
- PublicationA qualified claimKeep the decision and lineage.
Work through the example 3 STEPS
Use the Cuntz workbook observation to imagine a new import workflow. This is an explanatory mapping to the Processor architecture, not a claim that the published Cuntz release was built by all current Processor modules.
Preserve the source
Intake identifies the workbook bytes and source context. Extraction retains the literal cell, property code and unit rather than keeping only a convenient normalized number.
Inspect the candidate
A normalizer can propose a structured observation and a pipe identity. A reviewer checks the cell interpretation, the identity match and qualifications such as the timestamp note.
Publish the accountable result
An accepted projection keeps the evidence link and decision. A public view can be concise while a fixed release preserves the record needed to re-examine the claim.
- Cuntz Positiv · VAO 0.5.0-rc.2 ↗
Published manifest: identities, measurement observations, realization digests, profiles and rights. Exact examples checked against this release.
- MODAVIS Ontology Network 0.1.0 ↗
Identity, state, configuration, evidence, assertions, context and provenance. Teaching examples explain its distinctions without inventing new normative properties.
The example illustrates component responsibilities without attributing unverified processing history to the actual release.
The useful distinction. Automation can propose a useful structure; an accountable workflow keeps the interpretation and its grounds inspectable.
Why separate responsibilities?
A component that finds a promising page does not also decide that its claims are correct. A viewer that displays a convenient summary does not silently rewrite its evidence. A status monitor does not repair a failed job by changing the research data. These boundaries make it easier to identify who owns a decision, what can be replayed and which part of a workflow needs attention.
A framework is more than an execution chain
Real research revisits earlier stages. A new source can reopen an interpretation; a validation failure can return a candidate for review; a publication decision can restrict a public subset without deleting retained evidence. The diagram describes responsibilities and exchanges rather than a promise that every item passes through one automatic, irreversible sequence.
Discovery and publication have different contracts
Prospector finds potential publications, media, authority links and updates, then hands proposals into a reviewable workflow. It does not make every discovered identity canonical. Aggregator acquires approved material and preserves its source context. Processor returns candidates and derived evidence. Navigator exposes a research view, while Persistor prepares approved publication packages and stable release information. Initiator maintains the common structural and governance foundations.
Monitor contributes a separate operational view of health and freshness. A healthy service does not establish that a historical assertionAssertionA statement that can be identified, attributed, qualified and reviewed. Its presence in a source or dataset does not by itself establish truth.Work through the Cuntz example → is correct, and a stale service does not invalidate all retained research evidence. Keeping operational status and scholarly judgment separate makes both easier to interpret.