Okay, let’s regenerate the **Node Type Ontology table** itself first, ensuring the types are general and cross-disciplinary, avoiding jargon where possible, and clearly defining their scope. Then we’ll apply this finalized ontology to the full Node List in Appendix B.1. --- **Appendix B: Detailed Graph Data (Nodes and Edges)** **B.0 Controlled Vocabularies for Graph Annotation** *(This introductory section defines the standardized terms used in Appendix B.1 and B.2)* **B.0.1 Node Type Ontology** This table defines the controlled vocabulary used in the `Type` column of the Node List (Appendix B.1). These types categorize the fundamental nature of each node within the conceptual network, facilitating analysis across different domains. | Node Type ID | Description | Examples (Illustrative) | |:----------- |:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | `Paradigm` | A large-scale theoretical framework, scientific model, philosophical stance, or foundational axiomatic system. | Classical Mechanics, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Standard Model, ΛCDM Model, Physicalism, Infomatics, ZFC, FOL | | `Principle` | A core guiding idea, fundamental assertion, axiom, postulate, or background assumption underpinning a paradigm or argument. | Equivalence Principle, Cosmological Principle, Superposition, Uncertainty Principle, Causal Closure, Continuum Postulate, ZFC Axioms | | `Formalism` | A specific symbolic statement, mathematical equation, definition, structure, object, or calculational framework used for description. | Newton’s Laws, EFE, Schrödinger Eq., Entropy Formulas, Hilbert Space, Manifold, Group Theory, Calculus, π, φ, Zero, Base10 | | `Concept` | An abstract idea, term, or category used within or across paradigms, often representing physical quantities, properties, or relations. | Energy, Entropy, Spacetime, Field, Probability, Causation, Information, Realism, Locality, Determinism, Singularity, Measurement | | `Observation`| An empirical finding, observed phenomenon, experimental result, or data pattern that theories aim to explain or are constrained by. | Flat Rotation Curves, Supernova Dimming, CMB Anisotropies, BBN Abundances, Entanglement (as phenomenon), Quantization (as phenomenon) | | `Problem` | An identified inconsistency, paradox, theoretical tension, limitation, or unresolved question within or between paradigms. | Measurement Problem (QM), Quantum Gravity Problem, Cosmological Constant Problem, Singularity (GR context), GR-QM Incompatibility | | `Methodology`| A specific method, approach, technique, or tool used for investigation, calculation, modeling, or reasoning. | Probability Theory, Differential Geometry, Axiomatic Method, Renormalization, Formal System approach, Computational Simulation | *(Total: 7 Node Types)* **Rationale for this Ontology:** - **Cross-Disciplinary:** These types (Paradigm, Principle, Formalism, Concept, Observation, Problem, Methodology) are intended to be applicable across physics, math, logic, philosophy, and information science. - **Focus on Function:** The types categorize nodes based on their *role* within the structure of knowledge (e.g., foundational assertion, descriptive tool, empirical target, identified issue). - **Reduced Redundancy:** Merging related categories (like Law/Equation/Definition/MathStructure/MathObject into `Formalism`) simplifies the ontology while retaining essential distinctions. `Principle` broadly covers foundational assertions, whether called axioms, postulates, or assumptions. - **Analytical Utility:** This set allows for clear analysis, e.g., identifying which `Observations` challenge which `Paradigms`, which `Formalisms` are used to express which `Principles`, or which `Problems` link which `Concepts`. --- With this finalized 7-category Node Type ontology defined, are we ready to regenerate the **full Appendix B.1 Node List**, applying these types and the simplified naming conventions consistently?