Research: ground Semantic Projection Networks in prior art - #2
Merged
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Cem Pehlivan <203530888+cemphlvn@users.noreply.github.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Adds a non-normative literature-grounding note for the proposed Semantic Projection Networks (SPNs) research direction.
The note narrows the novelty boundary after reviewing adjacent work in:
The strongest correction is that network-shaped interoperability itself is prior art. The candidate OSIL contribution is instead framed as evidence-carrying semantic transport across heterogeneous computational representation networks, with preservation/loss contracts that compose over paths and constrain search.
It also adds six research questions and immediate falsifiable experiments.
Search-status disclosure
The requested Consensus search could not run because the connected account's monthly search quota was exhausted. The note says this explicitly and uses primary/publisher/bibliographic sources from an independent academic-web search instead. It should not be described as a Consensus systematic review.
MIT / DCO sign-off included in the commit.