Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Theoretical analysis demonstrates formal representations for six categories of social facts within an action framework, highlighting explicit architectural commitments for dynamic modeling.
Social inquiry uses entities, relations, events, attributes, states, and processes to articulate different questions about a common situation. This paper develops their representations within the abstract action framework introduced in Part I, with ontological questions suspended. Each category receives a separate construction, derivation, critique, and philosophical interpretation. Indexed appearances support declared entity-reidentification criteria; incidence relations require invariance under participant identification; occurrence records preserve distinctions lost by idempotent effects; partial attributes require both value and definedness consistency; state descriptions depend on retained observation and memory; and process histories retain ordering, intermediate conditions, and segmentation beyond their composite effect. Established continuation semantics supplies a common state-consistency construction. Further conditional results concern the exact composition of collapse sets, coordination among category records, classification-mediated updates, changes of descriptive regime, finite probabilistic aggregation, and finite-horizon approximation error. A cooperative-agreement model is developed through its complete twelve-map transformation family. A graph model derives collective units and shows how a component description can support edge additions while failing under deletion. The philosophical analysis separates formation, description, and social uptake; predictive sufficiency and historical warrant; and behavioral equivalence and entity identity. A proposed case-study design states the evidence and revision conditions for each representation. The contribution is a coordinated architecture of explicit modeling commitments, with empirical adequacy and broader ontological interpretation remaining open.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wanhong HUANG (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: