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: "Conceptual and Semantic Data Models"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally separates "Conceptual and Semantic Data Models" based on their primary purpose and the nature of the knowledge they capture. The first category encompasses models whose main objective is to describe, classify, and organize the inherent structure, entities, attributes, and factual relationships of a domain as it exists or is understood, establishing a common vocabulary and shared conceptual landscape (e.g., domain ontologies focused on classification, taxonomies, thesauri, conceptual logical data models describing an 'as-is' reality). The second category focuses on defining normative aspects, rules, constraints, obligations, permissions, and axiomatic relationships that prescribe how elements in a domain *should* behave, interact, or conform to specific conceptual principles and policies, enabling conceptual validation and reasoning (e.g., conceptual models of business rules, policy ontologies, security conceptual frameworks, semantic models primarily designed for inferential reasoning or compliance checking). These two categories represent distinct primary intentions in conceptual modeling and are mutually exclusive in their core emphasis, yet together comprehensively cover the full spectrum of abstract meaning and conceptual organization.
10
From: "Normative and Behavioral Semantic Models"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally separates "Normative and Behavioral Semantic Models" based on their primary function and scope. The first category, Models of Prescriptive Conduct and Action, encompasses semantic models focused on defining explicit directives, policies, permissions, obligations, prohibitions, and conditions that govern the actions and interactions of agents (human or system) within a domain, thereby directly prescribing acceptable or required behaviors and workflows. The second category, Models of Definitional Axioms and Invariance, comprises semantic models focused on establishing inherent logical truths, consistency conditions, integrity constraints, and axiomatic relationships that define what *must be true* or what *can be logically derived* within the conceptual domain, independent of specific agent actions. These foundational principles enable conceptual validation and inferential reasoning by defining the invariant properties and necessary relationships of the domain's entities. These two categories are mutually exclusive, as a model's primary emphasis is either on guiding dynamic behavior or on defining static logical truths and structural consistency, and together they comprehensively cover the full spectrum of prescribing 'how things should be' within a semantic model.
11
From: "Models of Prescriptive Conduct and Action"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally separates "Models of Prescriptive Conduct and Action" based on whether their primary focus is on defining the boundaries of individual agent capabilities or on defining the sequential orchestration of multiple actions towards a larger goal. The first category, Models of Authorization and Access Control, focuses on granting or restricting the ability of agents (human or system) to perform specific actions or access resources, thereby defining what is permitted or forbidden. The second category, Models of Process and Workflow Execution, focuses on prescribing the ordered steps, dependencies, conditions, and obligations that constitute a complete process or workflow, thereby guiding or enforcing sequences of actions. These two categories are mutually exclusive, as a model primarily defines either atomized capabilities or orchestrated sequences, and together they comprehensively cover the full spectrum of how conduct and action are prescribed within a domain.
12
From: "Models of Process and Workflow Execution"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally separates "Models of Process and Workflow Execution" based on whether their primary focus is on the abstract specification of the process itself or on the dynamic control and coordination of its active instances. The first category, Models of Process Definition and Structure, encompasses models that prescribe the sequence of steps, decision points, roles, conditions, and data flow that define 'what' a process entails—its internal logic and architectural blueprint (e.g., process diagrams, business rules for flow control, activity graphs). The second category, Models of Process Orchestration and Execution Management, comprises models that govern 'how' a defined process is instantiated, executed, monitored, synchronized, and controlled across various participants and systems, including aspects like resource allocation, scheduling, exception handling, and performance tracking (e.g., workflow orchestration patterns, state-transition models for process lifecycle management, execution log schemas, compensatory transaction models). These two categories are mutually exclusive, as a model primarily describes either the inherent static structure of a process or the dynamic management of its operational lifecycle, and together they comprehensively cover the full scope of how processes and workflows are prescribed and managed within an engineered digital system.
✓
Topic: "Models of Process Orchestration and Execution Management" (W7454)