1
From: "Human Potential & Development."
Split Justification: Development fundamentally involves both our inner landscape (**Internal World**) and our interaction with everything outside us (**External World**). (Ref: Subject-Object Distinction)..
2
From: "External World (Interaction)"
Split Justification: All external interactions fundamentally involve either other human beings (social, cultural, relational, political) or the non-human aspects of existence (physical environment, objects, technology, natural world). This dichotomy is mutually exclusive and comprehensively exhaustive.
3
From: "Interaction with the Non-Human World"
Split Justification: All human interaction with the non-human world fundamentally involves either the cognitive process of seeking knowledge, meaning, or appreciation from it (e.g., science, observation, art), or the active, practical process of physically altering, shaping, or making use of it for various purposes (e.g., technology, engineering, resource management). These two modes represent distinct primary intentions and outcomes, yet together comprehensively cover the full scope of how humans engage with the non-human realm.
4
From: "Modifying and Utilizing the Non-Human World"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally separates human activities within the "Modifying and Utilizing the Non-Human World" into two exhaustive and mutually exclusive categories. The first focuses on directly altering, extracting from, cultivating, and managing the planet's inherent geological, biological, and energetic systems (e.g., agriculture, mining, direct energy harnessing, water management). The second focuses on the design, construction, manufacturing, and operation of complex artificial systems, technologies, and built environments that human intelligence creates from these processed natural elements (e.g., civil engineering, manufacturing, software development, robotics, power grids). Together, these two categories cover the full spectrum of how humans actively reshape and leverage the non-human realm.
5
From: "Creating and Advancing Human-Engineered Superstructures"
Split Justification: ** This dichotomy fundamentally separates human-engineered superstructures based on their primary mode of existence and interaction. The first category encompasses all tangible, material structures, machines, and physical networks built by humans. The second covers all intangible, computational, and data-based architectures, algorithms, and virtual environments that operate within the digital realm. Together, these two categories comprehensively cover the full spectrum of artificial systems and environments humans create, and they are mutually exclusive in their primary manifestation.
6
From: "Engineered Digital and Informational Systems"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally separates Engineered Digital and Informational Systems based on their primary role regarding digital information. The first category encompasses all systems dedicated to the static representation, organization, storage, persistence, and accessibility of digital information (e.g., databases, file systems, data schemas, content management systems, knowledge graphs). The second category comprises all systems focused on the dynamic processing, transformation, analysis, and control of this information, defining how data is manipulated, communicated, and used to achieve specific outcomes or behaviors (e.g., software algorithms, artificial intelligence models, operating system kernels, network protocols, control logic). Together, these two categories comprehensively cover the full scope of digital systems, as every such system inherently involves both structured information and the processes that act upon it, and they are mutually exclusive in their primary nature (information as the "what" versus computation as the "how").
7
From: "Information Structures and Data Repositories"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally separates "Information Structures and Data Repositories" into two categories: the abstract definitions and organizational principles (the "blueprint") and the concrete data instances and content (the "filled-in details"). The first category encompasses the formal descriptions, rules, and relationships that govern how information is structured, represented, and interrelated (e.g., database schemas, data types, metadata standards, ontological models). The second category comprises the actual, specific values, records, files, or media content that conform to these structures and are stored for persistence and accessibility (e.g., rows in a database table, bytes in a file, documents in a content repository). Together, these two aspects comprehensively cover the entire scope of any digital information system, as every system requires both a defined structure and the actual data populating it. They are mutually exclusive because a structural definition is distinct from the specific data instances it describes.
8
From: "Information Schemas and Data Models"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally separates information schemas and data models based on their primary focus and level of abstraction. The first category encompasses abstract representations focused on the inherent meaning, relationships, and conceptual organization of information within a domain, largely independent of specific technical implementation (e.g., ontologies, logical data models, semantic networks). The second category comprises concrete, system-specific blueprints and rules that dictate how data is actually structured, formatted, validated, stored, or transmitted for practical, operational use by software and hardware systems (e.g., database schemas, API contracts, file format specifications, programming language type systems). These two categories are mutually exclusive, as a model is either primarily concerned with abstract meaning or with concrete system implementation, and together they comprehensively cover the entire spectrum of how information structures are formally defined.
9
From: "Technical and Operational Data Schemas"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally separates technical and operational data schemas based on whether they define data structures primarily for interaction between distinct systems, components, or persistent storage mechanisms, or primarily for how data is structured and typed within the active memory and execution context of a single computational process. The first category encompasses schemas governing data at rest (e.g., database schemas, file format specifications) and data in motion (e.g., API contracts, network message formats) that bridge system boundaries. The second category focuses on the internal representation and manipulation of data during program execution (e.g., programming language type systems, in-memory object models). These two categories are mutually exclusive, as a schema primarily serves either an inter-system/persistence role or an intra-process role, and together they comprehensively cover the entire spectrum of technical and operational data schema definitions.
10
From: "Schemas for System-External Data Interfaces"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally separates schemas for system-external data interfaces based on their primary function: defining the structure of data intended for long-term storage and retrieval (data at rest), versus defining the structure of data for transient exchange and communication between distinct computational systems or components (data in motion). These two categories are mutually exclusive, as a schema primarily serves either a persistence role or a transmission role, and together they comprehensively cover the full spectrum of how data is structured for interaction across system boundaries.
11
From: "Schemas for Persistent Data Storage"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally separates schemas for persistent data storage based on the primary point in the data lifecycle where their structural definition is enforced. The first category encompasses schemas that define a rigid, explicit structure which data must conform to upon being written to storage, ensuring consistency at the point of ingestion (e.g., relational database schemas, strongly-typed structured file formats). The second category comprises schemas where data can be stored with a more fluid or variable structure, and its organization and interpretation are primarily applied or inferred during the process of retrieval (e.g., NoSQL document schemas, object storage metadata, semi-structured data formats). These two approaches are mutually exclusive in their primary enforcement mechanism and together comprehensively cover the spectrum of technical schema application for persistent data.
12
From: "Schemas for Read-Time Flexible Structures"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally separates "Schemas for Read-Time Flexible Structures" based on where the primary structural definition or interpretation resides. The first category encompasses schemas for data where the structural information is inherently embedded within each data instance, making the data self-describing (e.g., JSON, XML, YAML documents). The flexibility arises as each instance can vary in its internal structure, and the schema is discovered or inferred by parsing the content upon reading. The second category comprises schemas that are not embedded within the individual data instances but are applied externally during read-time to interpret data that may be unstructured or semi-structured. This includes metadata associated with raw data (e.g., object storage metadata, tags) or explicit schema definitions (e.g., Parquet schemas, data lake schemas-on-read) that are used to project structure onto opaque data upon retrieval. These two categories are mutually exclusive, as a flexible read-time schema is either primarily intrinsic to the data's content or extrinsic and applied from a separate source, and together they comprehensively cover the full spectrum of read-time flexible data structuring.
✓
Topic: "Schemas for Externally Applied Interpretations" (W7326)