An Index Is Not A Source: Caching Nodes Are A Separate Class

The rule this section is judged by. An index page is not evidence.

Why it is here

The most uncomfortable document to publish inside an index, which is why it belongs here. Its rule is that a node either asserts or points, and a reader must always be able to tell which. A caching node, meaning a pre-computed mapping or a lookup or a convenience, asserts nothing, needs no attribution apparatus, and is prunable by definition. The failure mode is letting the index quietly become the source, at which point every claim downstream inherits the credibility of the weakest cache.

What it says

• A pre-created mapping is not a weak source: it is not a source at all.
• A node either asserts or points, and the two classes must be structurally distinguishable.
• If claims and routes are indistinguishable, every claim inherits the credibility of the weakest cache.
• Caching nodes are prunable by definition, because they assert nothing.
• A cached value without the date of its lookup is indistinguishable from a claim.
• It does not matter where you start, which answers the belief that a complete ontology must come first.

Worth re-reading for. Then look back at this page. Every summary in this section is a caching node: it points at the document and asserts nothing on its own. The carried markdown is the source, and the hash is what keeps the two distinguishable.

Where this document lands on the site

The document is the peak. Below it hang the concepts measured in its text and the places on this site that rest on it — and the two are different kinds of link, drawn differently: a measured edge is dashed and carries its count, an authored edge is solid. The method is stated in full on the hub.

Read it