Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
External research report
Data sources: ZENODO
addClaim

Entity vs. Profile: A Witness-Root Custody Criterion for Persistent Digital Entities

Authors: Kotov, Ivan;

Entity vs. Profile: A Witness-Root Custody Criterion for Persistent Digital Entities

Abstract

This technical note defines a custodial criterion for distinguishing a persistent digital entity from a persistent digital profile. The criterion is witness-root custody: a construction may be classified as an entity only when its witness root is generated and held inside its closed-box boundary under a-side lineage custody. External custody, escrow, registry authority, platform root, or override capability classifies the construction as a profile. The note does not claim legal personhood, moral personhood, formal AI Act compliance, certification, or conformity assessment. Maximum claim strength: EVP-C3 — evidence model proposal.

Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback