Process Namespace

Core Definition#

Process frames profile a process taken as a whole — an extended, internally complex occurrence that unfolds over time and is composed of many sub-events or phases. The primary semantic content is the overall process, not any single constituent happening. A process has internal temporal structure (beginning, continuation, interruption, resumption, cessation) but is conceptualized and named as one ongoing whole.

Formal template:

PROCESS(Theme, [Phases / Sub-events...]) [± Location] [± Time]

Key contrast:

• Phenomenon — a single bounded happening, taken as a unit (one instance of raining, one impact).
• Process — the whole process of which many such happenings may be constituents (a life, a history, an ongoing institutional or biological process).

Not a construal choice — a constitutive fact versus a shared baseline. PROCESS mints its own schema object in the conceptual dimension, as a child of CHANGE, on a graduated Ground — an ordered dimension with a genuine part-way, not just a start and an end (Conceptual Schemas §6.2). @phenomenon, by contrast, corresponds to bare EVENT itself: OCCURRENCE, the profile that used to name a bare happening over the old, richer EVENT cast, has since been retired outright, its own gap closed once EVENT shrank to a single element, Event, that just means the happening itself. A frame whose Ground is genuinely graduated therefore always grounds in PROCESS and sits in @process — never a choice between "the unit view" and "the whole-process view" of the same frame. This corrects the underlying construal question as it was first worked out: "is there a part-way? A graduated Ground mints PROCESS; without one, it's just a profile over EVENT" — read EVENT there as bare EVENT directly today, now that the profile it referred to no longer exists. An earlier version of this document (and of Ontological Frames) carried "Phenomenon ↔ Process" as a perspective pair alongside the genuine ones (Agentive↔Change, Agentive↔Undergoing, Undergoing↔Change) — it wasn't one.

Scope#

Includes (candidates, pending relocation):

• Generic process and its phase structure: Process, Process_continue, Process_pause, Process_resume, Process_stop
• Life and existence processes: Cycle_of_life_and_death, Subsisting, Existence (as ongoing process)
• Historical / biographical processes: History, Individual_history, Historic_event (as unfolding process)
• Extended institutional / procedural processes: Criminal_process and similar multi-phase procedures profiled as a whole

Excludes — see other namespaces:

• A single, bounded occurrence taken as a unit → Phenomenon (Choveu, Impact)
• Occurrence with a caused result (Agent/Cause → Patient → Result) → Agentive
• Result-state-focused change with no causer profiled → Change
• Path/goal-oriented motion → Change (motion subtype)
• A type-level scenario with defined roles and phases (not a token process) → the Scenario frame type (not a namespace — see below)

Critical boundary — Process vs. Phenomenon: The decision is what is profiled, not the verb:

• A fruta amadureceu — one bounded ripening occurrence, taken as a unit → Phenomenon
• o processo de amadurecimento / envelhecer profiled as the whole unfolding process → Process

Critical boundary — Process vs. Scenario: A Scenario is a type-level configuration of roles and phases that serves as a scaffold for embedded frames (Commerce_scenario). A Process is the token-level unfolding of an occurrence as a whole. A process may instantiate a scenario, but it is the occurrence itself, not the organizing schema.

The two are not alternatives on the same axis: Scenario is a frame type (Frame Classification), @process a namespace, and they are orthogonal — a frame can be both. Three of the frames in this namespace do carry the Scenario type (Crime_scenario, History_scenario, Socially_significant_history_scenario), and that is not an error: they are scaffolds whose own view over the Event is the whole-process one. The question to ask is therefore not "process or scenario?" but the two separately — does this frame profile an extended occurrence composed of sub-events? (namespace) and does it scaffold a multi-perspective or phase-decomposed scene? (type).

Subtypes#

(Seeded from Process candidates; to be refined after relocation.)

Characteristic signature#

PROCESS adds no element of its own beyond what it inherits from CHANGE, its own parent — Agonist and Event (in turn inherited from EVENT), plus CHANGE's own native Antagonist, Ground, Income, Outcome, Target. What makes a frame PROCESS rather than plain CHANGE is a restriction, not new structure: Ground must resolve to a genuinely graduated dimension — an ordered AXIS-type dimension with a real part-way, not just a start and an end. This page's own vocabulary (Theme, Phase) names roles at the frame-description level; the table below maps each onto the schema element it actually binds to.

No agentive role and no caused Result are profiled by PROCESS itself (those are the AGENTIVE / TRANSITION/MOTION signatures) — Agonist stays inherited, present, and typically unbound, exactly as it does on plain CHANGE.

graph LR
    Antagonist["Antagonist<br/><i>CONSTITUTIVE</i><br/>Theme, optional/generic"]
    Ground["Ground<br/><i>FORMAL</i><br/>graduated dimension"]
    Income["Income"]
    Outcome["Outcome"]

    Antagonist --- Income
    Antagonist --- Outcome
    Income -.->|is_region_for| Ground
    Outcome -.->|is_region_for| Ground
    Income -->|transition_from_to, along Ground's own ordering| Outcome

    classDef core fill:#8B0000,stroke:#8B0000,color:#fff
    classDef opt fill:#fff,stroke:#8B0000,stroke-dasharray:4 3,color:#8B0000
    class Income,Outcome,Ground core
    class Antagonist opt

Diagnostic Tests#

Test 1 — Whole-process profiling#

Does the frame profile the occurrence as a whole, rather than a single bounded instance?

✓ o envelhecimento (the whole aging process) → PROCESS
✗ A fruta amadureceu (one bounded ripening, taken as a unit) → NOT PROCESS (Phenomenon)

Test 2 — Composed of sub-events#

Can the occurrence be decomposed into multiple sub-events or phases while still being named as one process?

✓ um processo criminal (investigation → trial → sentence — one process) → PROCESS
✗ Impact (single punctual happening — no internal phases) → NOT PROCESS (Phenomenon)

Test 3 — Phase operators#

Does the frame accept phase operators — begin / continue / pause / resume / stop — applied to the process itself?

✓ O processo continuou / foi interrompido / recomeçou → PROCESS
✗ *A explosão continuou por fases (a punctual event has no process phases) → NOT PROCESS

Test 4 — Extended duration as an internal property#

Is temporal extension intrinsic (the process is its unfolding), rather than a mere duration adverbial on a unit event?

✓ A história do país (intrinsically extended, unfolding whole) → PROCESS
✗ Choveu por horas (a unit occurrence measured by a duration adverbial) → NOT PROCESS (Phenomenon)

Test 5 — Not a type-level scaffold#

Is the frame a token unfolding occurrence rather than a type-level role/phase scaffold?

✓ este processo de produção (this production process, a token) → PROCESS
✗ Commerce_scenario (type-level buyer/seller/goods scaffold, no unfolding profiled) → NOT PROCESS