{"id":"linked-art/1.1-meeting-implementation-evidence","relativePath":"linked-art/1.1-meeting-implementation-evidence.md","title":"Linked Art 1.1 Implementation Evidence","markdown":"# Linked Art 1.1 Implementation Evidence\n\nMeeting: August 5, 2026  \nPrepared: July 28, 2026  \nProject: Meta Museum by Sun & Rain Works\n\nThis packet summarizes implementation experience relevant to three agenda\nissues. It reports current behavior and questions for the group. It does not\npresent pending proposals as accepted Linked Art 1.1 practice.\n\n## Issue #362: limited API fields\n\nMeta Museum can produce a server-defined brief record without accepting\narbitrary client field lists. The provisional brief contract:\n\n- retains canonical `id` and `type`;\n- retains bounded discovery fields when present;\n- sets `_complete: false`;\n- provides `_links.full.href` for deterministic full-record retrieval; and\n- does not mutate or replace the canonical full record.\n\nImplementation: `src/contracts/linked-art-response-profile.ts`  \nEvidence: `tests/contracts/linked-art-response-profile.test.ts`\n\nQuestion for the group: should 1.1 standardize profile names, discovery\nmechanics, required fields, or only the completeness and full-link semantics?\n\n## Issue #637: confirmed non-equivalence\n\nMeta Museum distinguishes a low-scoring or rejected candidate from a\ncurator-confirmed non-match. A confirmed decision requires:\n\n- the two compared entity identifiers;\n- curator identity and decision timestamp;\n- rationale and at least one cited evidence source; and\n- the reconciliation score when available.\n\nThe internal assertion emits no `distinct_from`, `notEquivalent`, or other\nnegative Linked Art property while the vocabulary and assignment pattern remain\nunsettled.\n\nImplementation: `src/contracts/reconciliation-negative.ts`  \nEvidence: `tests/contracts/reconciliation-negative.test.ts`\n\nQuestion for the group: should the negative relationship be asserted directly\nbetween entities, or qualified through an assignment that carries evidence and\nresponsibility?\n\n## Issue #780: provenance of unenumerated Sets\n\nThe fixture models a conceptual `Set` with `members_exemplified_by` pointing to\na representative `HumanMadeObject`. Acquisition provenance is attached only to\nthat exemplar. The Set has neither invented members nor physical ownership\nhistory.\n\nFixture: `tests/fixtures/linked-art-1.1/unenumerated-set-provenance.json`  \nEvidence: `tests/quality/linked-art-1-1-agenda-fixtures.test.ts`\n\nQuestion for the group: is exemplar-level provenance sufficient when the Set is\nintentionally unenumerated, and should guidance explicitly prohibit copying\nthat provenance onto the conceptual Set?\n\n## Requested meeting outcomes\n\n1. Record the accepted terminology and constraints for each issue.\n2. Link the resolution or approved example.\n3. Keep unresolved terms gated after the meeting.\n4. Update the model reference before changing validators or public mappings.\n\nRecord outcomes in\n[`1.1-meeting-decision-ledger.json`](1.1-meeting-decision-ledger.json). Agenda\nproposals remain separate from final decisions, and a resolved row requires a\nLinked Art issue resolution link, target release, and explicit local action.\n","sections":[{"level":2,"heading":"Issue #362: limited API fields","anchor":"issue-362-limited-api-fields"},{"level":2,"heading":"Issue #637: confirmed non-equivalence","anchor":"issue-637-confirmed-non-equivalence"},{"level":2,"heading":"Issue #780: provenance of unenumerated Sets","anchor":"issue-780-provenance-of-unenumerated-sets"},{"level":2,"heading":"Requested meeting outcomes","anchor":"requested-meeting-outcomes"}],"html":"<h1 id=\"linked-art-1-1-implementation-evidence\">Linked Art 1.1 Implementation Evidence</h1>\n<p>Meeting: August 5, 2026  </p>\n<p>Prepared: July 28, 2026  </p>\n<p>Project: Meta Museum by Sun &amp; Rain Works</p>\n<p>This packet summarizes implementation experience relevant to three agenda</p>\n<p>issues. It reports current behavior and questions for the group. It does not</p>\n<p>present pending proposals as accepted Linked Art 1.1 practice.</p>\n<h2 id=\"issue-362-limited-api-fields\">Issue #362: limited API fields</h2>\n<p>Meta Museum can produce a server-defined brief record without accepting</p>\n<p>arbitrary client field lists. The provisional brief contract:</p>\n<ul><li>retains canonical `id` and `type`;</li><li>retains bounded discovery fields when present;</li><li>sets `_complete: false`;</li><li>provides `_links.full.href` for deterministic full-record retrieval; and</li><li>does not mutate or replace the canonical full record.</li></ul>\n<p>Implementation: `src/contracts/linked-art-response-profile.ts`  </p>\n<p>Evidence: `tests/contracts/linked-art-response-profile.test.ts`</p>\n<p>Question for the group: should 1.1 standardize profile names, discovery</p>\n<p>mechanics, required fields, or only the completeness and full-link semantics?</p>\n<h2 id=\"issue-637-confirmed-non-equivalence\">Issue #637: confirmed non-equivalence</h2>\n<p>Meta Museum distinguishes a low-scoring or rejected candidate from a</p>\n<p>curator-confirmed non-match. A confirmed decision requires:</p>\n<ul><li>the two compared entity identifiers;</li><li>curator identity and decision timestamp;</li><li>rationale and at least one cited evidence source; and</li><li>the reconciliation score when available.</li></ul>\n<p>The internal assertion emits no `distinct_from`, `notEquivalent`, or other</p>\n<p>negative Linked Art property while the vocabulary and assignment pattern remain</p>\n<p>unsettled.</p>\n<p>Implementation: `src/contracts/reconciliation-negative.ts`  </p>\n<p>Evidence: `tests/contracts/reconciliation-negative.test.ts`</p>\n<p>Question for the group: should the negative relationship be asserted directly</p>\n<p>between entities, or qualified through an assignment that carries evidence and</p>\n<p>responsibility?</p>\n<h2 id=\"issue-780-provenance-of-unenumerated-sets\">Issue #780: provenance of unenumerated Sets</h2>\n<p>The fixture models a conceptual `Set` with `members_exemplified_by` pointing to</p>\n<p>a representative `HumanMadeObject`. Acquisition provenance is attached only to</p>\n<p>that exemplar. The Set has neither invented members nor physical ownership</p>\n<p>history.</p>\n<p>Fixture: `tests/fixtures/linked-art-1.1/unenumerated-set-provenance.json`  </p>\n<p>Evidence: `tests/quality/linked-art-1-1-agenda-fixtures.test.ts`</p>\n<p>Question for the group: is exemplar-level provenance sufficient when the Set is</p>\n<p>intentionally unenumerated, and should guidance explicitly prohibit copying</p>\n<p>that provenance onto the conceptual Set?</p>\n<h2 id=\"requested-meeting-outcomes\">Requested meeting outcomes</h2>\n<ol><li>Record the accepted terminology and constraints for each issue.</li></ol>\n<ol><li>Link the resolution or approved example.</li></ol>\n<ol><li>Keep unresolved terms gated after the meeting.</li></ol>\n<ol><li>Update the model reference before changing validators or public mappings.</li></ol>\n<p>Record outcomes in</p>\n<p>`1.1-meeting-decision-ledger.json`(1.1-meeting-decision-ledger.json). Agenda</p>\n<p>proposals remain separate from final decisions, and a resolved row requires a</p>\n<p>Linked Art issue resolution link, target release, and explicit local action.</p>","updatedAt":"2018-10-20T01:46:40.000Z","checksum":"342d9277c7d744417f7dc3a164ff64840cc88935b8c8a26023f0cdcdcc02df85","checksumPrefix":"342d9277c7d7","anchorCount":4,"lineCount":74,"rawUrl":"/api/docs/content?path=linked-art%2F1.1-meeting-implementation-evidence.md","htmlUrl":"/docs?doc=linked-art%2F1.1-meeting-implementation-evidence.md","apiUrl":"/api/docs/content?path=linked-art%2F1.1-meeting-implementation-evidence.md"}