Definitions: corpus forms

Breakdown of real fragments: package identifier, human act name, form rating (exemplary / debatable / wrong form choice) and why.

OverviewBoundariesCorpus formsPitfalls

Science

1. NASEM reproducibility — public exact with three conjuncts (exemplary)

Package nasem.reproducibility (NASEM reproducibility definitions, US science):

Arxo Law

pub definition ReproductionSetupMatchesDefinition(att: ReproductionAttempt) exact {
    label ru unofficial "Постановка попытки отвечает определению воспроизводимости: те же данные, тот же код, те же условия анализа";
    when used_same_input_data(att) and used_same_code_and_methods(att) and used_same_conditions_of_analysis(att);
}

Exemplary: a named concept referenced by other norms of the package (the file’s following definitions answer the same question for neighbouring concepts); pub exports the concept; the source anchor traces to the fragment. The body is a conjunction of three literals: the sufficient half infers the concept only when all three hold at once.

2. Same file — family of definitions on one question (exemplary)

The same package holds ReplicationSetupMatchesDefinition (own data, same question) and GeneralizabilityClaim (two arguments, one condition). Exemplary as a method: one domain question — several named concepts side by side, each with its own condition; the consumer picks the name instead of rewriting conditions. The reverse would be the mistake: one concept with a disjunction of unrelated conditions inside.

Standards

3. W3C PROV — definition over a same-named relation (exemplary)

Package w3c.prov (W3C PROV, provenance standard), entities and activities:

Arxo Law

pub definition Communication(informed: ProvObject, informant: ProvObject) exact {
    label ru unofficial "Сообщение: одна деятельность использовала сущность, порождённую другой, и сама сущность не названа";
    when communication(informed, informant);
}

Exemplary and instructive: the definition name (Communication) differs in case from the relation name (communication) — the namespaces do not collide, and the concept names a pattern over the fact. Lowercase is the fact, uppercase the concept: a naming discipline that removes the “why no LDC-E1201” question.

Law

4. Civil Code of Kazakhstan — qualification as a strict rule instead of a definition (debatable)

Package kz.corpus.civilcode (Civil Code of Kazakhstan), natural persons — qualification of a person as a natural person is written as rule … strict, not as definition. Debatable, not a mistake: observed behaviour is the same, but the proof-graph explanation says “by rule”, not “by definition”, and the was_derived_from edge is absent. A possible reason is the qualification being woven into the article: when the condition and the concept live in one sentence of the act, the author picks a rule; a definition pays off where the name is reused. Corpus-wide counts record the same practice quantitatively: rule … strict in hundreds of packages, typical use — definitions, qualifications, structural consequences (in detail — the strict-rules corpus forms).

Teaching packages

5. This section’s examples (runs green)

Package research.definition.exact_minor — definition minor … exact without a separate relation: check OK, law test 2/2. Fixes the main formality: the relation is synthesized, redeclaration is LDC-E1201. Package research.definition.strict_classification — classification driver … strict: check OK, law test 2/2, observed behaviour matches the definition.