Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Language: | |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20039847 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Table of Contents:
- <p>Abstract<br>The CKS pattern positions itself relative to two adjacent prior-art lines, and a parent foundational note<br>(Li 2026, Inheritance and Extension) establishes the joint inheritance frame. This note specializes the<br>OIDA half. The source paper §5.2 is precise about what CKS inherits from OIDA: two architectural<br>primitives — signed contradiction edges between conflicting Knowledge Objects, and<br>QUESTION-as-modeled-ignorance as a first-class representation of missing knowledge. The same<br>section names three architectural axes on which CKS differs from OIDA at the core-theory scope<br>(governance, role/authority schema, AI-as-substrate-mediator). This note states the two-primitive<br>inheritance precisely, identifies what is not inherited from OIDA (epistemic-class typology,<br>importance-with-decay, the Knowledge Gravity Engine, AI-as-substrate-client posture), distinguishes<br>the inheritance from four adjacent prior-art frames it is commonly conflated with (paraconsistent logic,<br>Dung-style abstract argumentation, detect-resolve-forget conflict pipelines, pending-resolution<br>treatments of unknowns), names the load-bearing role the inheritance plays for downstream CKS<br>commitments (conflict-as-first-class, substrate-as-source-of-truth, the architectural-difference claim,<br>the two-axis extension structure), enumerates seven failure modes that mis-attribute OIDA inheritance,<br>and provides an operational test for whether a system stands in the OIDA-inheritance relationship the<br>source paper §5.2 actually defends.</p>