#Filesystem · Football League · Harvard University
This document revises v1.1 in light of the theoretical revision established in [[sources/2026-02-25-relational-revision]]. Version 1.1 applied a categorical reading of [[01_objects]] — actor, method, domain, and material as mutually exclusive kinds — and identified three cross-cutting gaps. This version applies a relational reading: axis-properties are scalar and relational, held by objects to varying degrees relative to particular actions and agents; the normative/descriptive distinction is a stance rather than an intrinsic property of compounds. Most gaps from v1.1 are resolved; new open questions are recorded where they arise.
| Section | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Theoretical revision | The two moves grounding this version |
| Correspondence apparatus | Definitions including relational properties |
| I. POSIX Filesystem | Directory hierarchy, permissions, processes |
| II. Football League | Players, officials, Laws of the Game |
| III. Harvard University | Faculty, students, governing statutes |
| IV. Resolution and open questions | What v1.1's gaps become under the relational reading |
#Theoretical Revision
Two moves, established in the discussion of 2026-02-25, ground this revision.
Move 1 (Axis-properties as relational and scalar). Actor, method, domain, and material are not mutually exclusive categories. They are properties that objects possess to varying degrees, relationally — the degree depending on what action, agent, and context are in scope. An institution can have high actor-property and high domain-property simultaneously. This is not a contradiction; it follows from the relational character of the properties. The three axis-properties are characterized as follows.
Actor-property (power) is the ability to change things in the world. In a normative sense, it is the power to make the world the way one wants. This is the quantity of actor-ness. It is not a simple magnitude — power is always power over something in some domain — but it is tractable as a relational scalar.
Domain-property (scope) is the extent of the territory an entity constitutes. Everything is a domain, but at different scales. A table is a small domain, literally spatial. An organization can be virtual but has scope defined by the number of other objects it coordinates and brings to bear. Scope is a reasonable proxy for domain-magnitude.
Material-property (malleability) is the degree to which an entity can be worked on. It is quantitative in the sense of quantities of matter or ease of movement — the earth has very low material-property. Malleability is also relative: what is material for one actor is not material for another. A legal document has high material-property for a lawyer and low material-property for a chef.
Method-property can also be bundled with any of the above. A recipe is a document (material-property) that encodes a method-type (method-property). A skilled practitioner is an actor who embodies a method. This bundling is accepted without requiring a separate argument.
Move 2 (Normative/descriptive as stance). The normative/descriptive distinction is not a property of compounds but a stance — the epistemic or normative orientation adopted by the compound's producer or interpreter. A scientific paper carries a descriptive stance: its author intends to describe. A law carries a normative stance: its author intends to prescribe. The same content can be approached with either stance. This explains why the boundary is "conceptually clear" (stances are distinct) but "empirically porous" (the same compound invites both stances). The 2×2 table (pattern/situation/policy/engagement) is best understood as a taxonomy of dominant stance profiles rather than mutually exclusive ontological kinds.
The deeper claim. The two moves converge on a general principle: all ontological properties are relational — they hold relative to a particular action, agent, and stance. This is the core of a relational situational ontology (also called pluralistic relational situational ontology in the TTT framework from which HAAK is derived). Objects come together in situations, which reveal a subset of their relations to one another. The full extent of an object is only disclosed through its relationships across many situations — each situation is a limited facet of the true object. The axis-properties discussed here do not exhaust all the relationships between objects. They are the most practically useful bundles for the kinds of actions HAAK tracks.
#Apparatus
Definition C1 (Correspondence). A correspondence is an assignment of ontological kind — axis-property (actor-power, domain-scope, material-malleability), method, or compound stance-profile (pattern, situation, policy, engagement, constitution) — to a structural feature of a system. A correspondence is clean if the assignment is coherent and consistent with all definitions in [[01objects]] as refined by the relational revision. It is open if the assignment is plausible but requires further development in [[02relations]].
Definition C2 (Diagnostic marker). A ⚡ marker signals an open correspondence. In this version, most gaps from v1.1 are resolved; the remaining ⚡ markers identify questions the relational reading raises rather than contradictions it creates.
Definition C3 (Relational property). A relational property is a property that an object holds relative to a particular action, agent, and context. No relational property is intrinsic — its magnitude varies with the relational frame. Actor-power, domain-scope, and material-malleability are all relational properties.
Definition C4 (Stance). A stance is the epistemic or normative orientation with which a compound is produced or interpreted. A descriptive stance intends to report what is. A normative stance intends to prescribe what should be. Stances belong to the relationship between an agent and a compound; they are not properties of the compound's content.
#I. POSIX Filesystem
Correspondence I.1 (Actors). Processes, users, groups, and root are actors. Actor-power varies: root has maximal actor-power within the system (it can change any object's state); a guest process has minimal actor-power. The organizational hierarchy is an actor-power hierarchy: root > adminuser > regularuser > guest. Clean under relational reading.
Correspondence I.2 (Methods). read, write, execute, stat, chmod, chown, mkdir, unlink, mount. Refinement: writefile → open + writebytes + close. Composition: copy = read(src) + write(dst). Clean.
Correspondence I.3 (Domain). The directory hierarchy is the domain forest. / is the root; subsumption holds at every parent/child edge. Every directory has domain-scope proportional to the number of files and processes it contains. Clean.
Correspondence I.4 (Materials). Files, directories, symbolic links, device nodes. Material-malleability is type-dependent and actor-relative: /etc/shadow has high malleability for root and zero malleability for other. A directory has malleability for readdir but not for byte-stream write. Clean under relational reading — the actor-relativity of malleability is a feature, not a problem.
Correspondence I.5 (Policies). Permission bits are policies. Their accumulation through domain subsumption is confirmed. umask is a meta-policy. Clean.
Correspondence I.6 (Constitution). The POSIX standard and kernel security model. Clean.
> ⚡ Open I.A (execute and actor-type derivation). Under the relational reading, the binary has actor-property bundled with material-property: it encodes an actor-type (method-property, characterizing the process's behavior) while remaining a processable object. The execute method instantiates an actor-token by activating the binary's actor-type-encoding. This is more tractable than in v1.1 — "a binary encodes an actor-type" is a coherent claim under property bundling. What remains open is how actor-type derivation from a material is formalized in [[02_relations]]. Partially resolved; formalization deferred.
> ⚡ Open I.B (inode: bundle of material and domain-resource properties). Under the relational reading, an inode bundles material-property (it can be processed by stat, chmod) with policy-carrying (it holds the permission bits that constitute policies scoped to that file's domain-position). This is not a contradiction — an object can have both. The open question is whether policy-encoding is a form of method-property (the inode encodes what operations are permitted) or something distinct. Resolved as contradiction; open as formalization question.
> ⚡ Open I.C (root's constitutional position). Root has maximal actor-power. Under the relational reading, this is coherent: root's actor-power is so high relative to all other objects in the filesystem that it is effectively unbounded within the system. The "policy exemption" from v1.1 is better described as: for any policy P scoped to a domain D, root's actor-power exceeds the resistance that P provides. This is not a logical exemption from the normative order — root can violate policies in the descriptive sense while remaining accountable at the constitutional level (e.g., audit logs). Resolved as inconsistency; restated as a fact about power distribution.
#II. Association Football League
Correspondence II.1 (Actors). goalkeeper, fieldplayer, referee, assistantreferee, VAR_official, coach, club, FIFA. Actor-power varies: FIFA has highest actor-power within football (it can change the Laws); a substitute warming up has minimal actor-power in the current match. Clean.
Correspondence II.2 (Methods). pass, shoot, tackle, cardissuance, substitution, VARreview. Clean.
Correspondence II.3 (Domain). penaltyarea ⊆ pitch ⊆ stadium ⊆ PremierLeague ⊆ UEFA ⊆ FIFA. Domain-scope increases at each level: FIFA has the largest scope, the goal area the smallest. Clean.
Correspondence II.4 (Materials). The ball, match footage, match report, player contracts. Material-malleability is actor-relative: the ball has high malleability for fieldplayer (kick, head, pass) and higher for goalkeeper within the penalty area (may also catch). Match footage has zero malleability in a match without VAR; high malleability for VARofficial when VAR_review is invoked. Clean under relational reading.
Correspondence II.5 (Policies). Laws of the Game. Accumulation through domain subsumption confirmed. Clean.
Correspondence II.6 (Constitution). IFAB. Clean.
> ⚡ Open II.A (the referee processes acts: resolved). Under the relational reading, a situation (an ongoing act) has material-property relative to the referee: it is malleable — the referee can process it by issuing a judgment, transforming the normative state of the match. The categorical restriction of operands to materials is dissolved. A situation has material-malleability for actors whose methods take situations as input. Resolved.
> ⚡ Open II.B (VAR and retrospective review). VAR processes footage (a material-token that represents a past act) rather than the act itself. Under the relational reading, footage has material-malleability for VARofficial: it can be rewound, scrutinized, and analyzed. This resolves the material-operand question. What remains open is the representation relation: footage stands in for a past compound. The ontology does not yet have a name for a material that represents a compound, and the review act's relationship to the original act (not just correction of the outcome but evaluation of the situation) is unformalized. Partially resolved; representation relation deferred to [[02relations]].
> ⚡ Open II.C (FIFA as institution). Under the relational reading, FIFA bundles high actor-power (it changes Laws, expels nations) with high domain-scope (all of world football occurs within FIFA's domain). This is not a contradiction — it is the defining structure of an institution. Resolved as inconsistency; the institution concept is now: an entity with jointly high actor-power and domain-scope. Whether institution merits a formal definition is deferred.
#III. Harvard University
Correspondence III.1 (Actors). undergraduate_student through president and Corporation. Actor-power varies: the Corporation has highest actor-power (can amend the constitution); a first-year undergraduate has least. Clean.
Correspondence III.2 (Methods). lecture, seminar, thesisdefense, tenurereview, grading, publication. Composition: PhDprogram = coursework + qualifyingexams + prospectus + dissertation + defense. Clean.
Correspondence III.3 (Domain). DepartmentofChemistry ⊆ FAS ⊆ Harvard_University. Domain-scope: Harvard has higher scope than any single department; a seminar room has the smallest scope. Clean.
Correspondence III.4 (Materials). Theses, papers, syllabi, datasets, grant proposals, transcripts. Material-malleability is actor-relative: a thesis has high malleability for the dissertation committee (they evaluate, require revisions) and lower malleability for an external reader (they can only cite). Clean under relational reading.
Correspondence III.5 (Policies). Multi-level accumulation: course ⊆ department ⊆ FAS ⊆ university ⊆ federal regulation. Clean.
Correspondence III.6 (Constitution). Harvard's governing statutes and Corporation's charter. Clean.
> ⚡ Open III.A (Harvard as institution). Harvard bundles high actor-power (grants degrees, hires, sets policy) with high domain-scope (the territory of all Harvard academic work). Same resolution as II.C. Resolved.
> ⚡ Open III.B (the student as actor and material: resolved). Under the relational reading, the student has high actor-property relative to the reading material they process (they reason, argue) and high material-property relative to the pedagogical method being applied (their capabilities are being transformed). These are not contradictory. The student's actor-power and material-malleability are simultaneously real, each relative to a different relational frame within the same situation. Resolved.
> ⚡ Open III.C (the tenure clock: stance accounts for it). The tenure clock is written with a descriptive stance (this is what happens in six years) and interpreted by department chairs with a normative stance (this is what must happen). Both stances are legitimate and can coexist over the same object. The ontology's 2×2, reframed as a taxonomy of dominant stance profiles, accommodates this. Resolved.
#IV. Resolution and Open Questions
What v1.1's gaps become under the relational reading.
Gap IV.1 (institution problem) is resolved. Institutions bundle high actor-power with high domain-scope; this is not a contradiction in the relational view. The question of whether institution merits a formal definition as a compound kind is deferred — it may be a useful shorthand rather than a new primitive.
Gap IV.2 (compounds as operands) is resolved. Compounds have material-property relative to actors whose methods take them as inputs. The referee processes a situation by issuing a judgment; the situation has material-malleability for that method. No revision to Definition 5 is required, only a clarification that material-malleability is relational and can be instantiated by any entity that can be processed.
Gap IV.3 (normative/descriptive boundary) is resolved by the stance move. The boundary is conceptually clear (stances are distinct); its empirical porousness reflects that stances are chosen by agents, not fixed by objects.
What remains open.
The deeper claim — that all ontological properties are relational — presses toward a question the ontology does not yet answer: what is an object, prior to all its relational properties? If objects are constituted by their bundles of relational properties, there are no intrinsic primitives in the traditional sense. The three axes become primitive dimensions of relation, not categories of objects. This is likely the right result. It changes the character of [[02_relations]] from "how defined objects relate" to "what relations are and how objects are constituted by them." The TTT framework, from which this ontology is derived, addresses this directly and will inform the next development.
> ⚡ Open IV.R (representation relation). Across all three examples, materials appear that represent compounds: match footage represents a situation; a student transcript represents an engagement; a match report represents a completed situation. The representation relation — a material standing in for a compound — is unnamed in the current ontology and is needed for a full account of retrospective review (VAR), evaluation (grading), and record (transcript). Deferred to [[02_relations]].
ontology · correspondences · v1.2 · relational revision · 2026-02-25 · zach + claude
Ontology 04 — Three Correspondences (v1.2 — Relational Revision) — 2026 — Zachary F. Mainen / HAAK