Five dimensions
of one resource.

The card keeps the coordinates.

Consider a publication about passing on craft knowledge. Its topic concerns a territory, its format may be an overview and its scale may be a description of a local practice. Its time context relates to heritage, while its status depends on the content: recorded experience, the author’s concept or a proposal for future action.

These attributes answer different questions. If only the topic is retained, a historical source, a draft programme and a report on completed work will appear side by side. That proximity is useful for finding material, but is insufficient to conclude what already exists and what is being proposed.

Time shows the context; direction shows the intention.

The atlas uses three time perspectives: heritage, today and the horizon of a proposal. They help identify an idea’s origins, its present discussion and its possible continuation. The “horizon” label does not specify an implementation date. The date of a particular event must be confirmed by a separate source.

The direction of change is described in words. For example, “from preserving knowledge to teaching” or “from discussion to a limited practical test”. Such descriptions make the idea clear and allow us to ask which steps connect the starting situation with the expected result. An arrow between them does not by itself prove causation.

Scale keeps conclusions within their limits.

One team’s experience may be useful to another territory. Transfer nevertheless requires checking resources, participants’ preparation and local conditions. The catalogue therefore distinguishes a team, a project, a territory, a country and a network of portals. These define the scope of the material, not levels of quality or importance.

When comparing two texts, it is useful to start by asking whether they describe the same task. Then clarify the conditions and how the conclusions were reached. An example of local cooperation and a national doctrine may complement one another, but address questions at different scales.

Format and status help to choose a way to read.

An article develops an argument, an overview gathers context and an event programme proposes a structure for discussion. A source allows the author’s wording to be checked. An electronic journal brings several materials together around a common topic and preserves links between them.

Status provides another coordinate. “The author’s concept” indicates the origin of a model. “Editorial material” indicates how the text was prepared. “Proposal” shows that the content concerns possible future work. These labels are not automatic ratings of reliability: the grounds for a particular claim must be read within the material.

The diagram shows its subject.

The atlas bars show the number of entries in the current selection by topic. They are recalculated when a filter changes. They show which materials are represented in the catalogue and what is still missing. These numbers cannot establish the state of the economy, project effectiveness or a territory’s prospects.

This boundary is especially important for chronal-vector analysis. In this edition of the portal, the term denotes descriptive work with time, directions and supporting grounds. The framework helps formulate questions and connect sources. Verifying forecasts would require a separate methodology, data and an assessment of errors.

From selection — back to the source.

A useful path begins with a filter, passes through a text and ends with checking its supporting grounds. If there are no materials, the catalogue shows an empty selection. This is a reason to broaden the query or propose a new publication; an absent entry does not prove an absent phenomenon.

In the author’s EQUILIBRIUM interface design, entities, connections, a map, filters and time are placed alongside one another. The public atlas develops this principle using editorial materials: readers can choose a context while retaining the ability to open the source and assess the conclusion themselves.