Design Term Comparison Workflow
Resolve source-specific terminology questions with a scoped relation, explicit uncertainty, and a reusable handoff.
GitHub에서 원문 보기 ↗새 탭Primary role: terminology lookup, authoring, and handoff route.
Repository Boundary
This workflow answers what two named sources mean and how those meanings relate. Internal naming still belongs to Controlled Vocabulary. Implementation behavior belongs to its owning domain. Document retrieval does not execute a structured terminology query.
Reusable Method
- Capture the exact question, both labels, intended audience, and comparison scope.
- Identify each named source and source kind. If either source is missing, report insufficient context.
- Check Recorded Sources and open the direct term locators in Term Cases.
- Record each label, concept, status, and version independently. Classify through Concept Families.
- Select a relation type, direction, and non-trivial boundary. A composed-of relationship is not automatically subtyping.
- Return the scoped result, term IDs, source recheck status, and a counterexample or missing observation.
- For a new record, update the source inventory and term/relation tables, then run their validator and fixtures.
Decision Table
| Situation | Result to produce |
|---|---|
| Identical labels, distinct meanings in two named sources | same_label_different_meaning, both meanings and the confusion risk |
| Shared region but source-specific features on both sides | partial_overlap, intersection and each side's difference |
| One form stores or consumes another concept | implementation_representation, representation first and the loss/addition boundary |
| Genuine set inclusion with a counterexample | broader_than or narrower_than, explicit direction |
| Meaning overlaps across versions or systems | near_equivalent, declared symmetry and the divergence axis |
| One source records a dated label replacement | renamed_to, same source and verifiable event |
| The proposed comparison uses incompatible axes | not_comparable, the axis mismatch |
| Source, scope, or meaning cannot be established | No relation recorded; say what evidence is missing |
Handoff Template
question: # the consumer's actual terminology question
term_ids: # exact identifiers from conflict-cases.md
relation_types: # closed types actually relied on
scope: # the recorded comparison scope
answer: # locally written scoped conclusion
boundary: # where substitution breaks
sources_rechecked: # date and source locators, or unverified
unknowns: # missing evidence, or none within the recorded scope
consumer_reference: not_applicable
consumer_reference_reason: This blank terminology template selects no consumer record.Worked Handoff
Question: can a CSS custom property be called the same thing as an interchange token?
Term identifiers: css.custom-property, dtcg.token. Relation type: implementation_representation, from the CSS representation to the token concept, in scope token-to-css-output. Answer: a custom property can consume a translated token value, but the runtime slot does not carry the full interchange record and can also store other values. Sources rechecked: the direct CSSWG and DTCG 2025.10 locators in Term Cases, 2026-09-08. Consumer reference: not_applicable, because this is a terminology explanation with no selected consumer record.
This judgment does not prove any actual converter preserves aliases, types, or metadata.
Reader Verification Tasks
| Task | Expected result | Failure signal |
|---|---|---|
| Compare Figma and Carbon “Component” | Two source-specific records and same_label_different_meaning |
One merged definition |
| Compare variable, token, and custom property | partial_overlap plus representation-first mapping |
Equivalence or reversed representation direction |
| Compare the second DTCG draft with 2025.10 | Historical/current version scopes and no invented rename | Treating the draft as the current implementation contract |
| Compare “style guide” and “design system” without organizations | Insufficient context; request the two sources | Universal history or deprecation claim |
These are expected lookup outcomes. A maintainer records actual reader task results and participant identity separately before claiming findability evidence. Reader tasks are not a domain lifecycle prerequisite.
Opinionated Guidance
Resolve ambiguity explicitly; a qualified answer is more useful than an unsupported winner. Retain historical records with their own scopes when a current reading changes.
Platform-Specific Guidance
Direct source authority is limited to its named platform, system, tool, or specification. A platform terminology comparison does not establish a target's support for the named feature.
Unsupported Absolutes
Do not infer equivalence from an absent relation, source popularity, or shared spelling. A passing record validator cannot determine whether a semantic judgment is persuasive.
Verification Contract
Verify table consistency mechanically and meaning against both sources. Run the reader tasks for an actual findability claim. Re-review when either source revises its term or a reader encounters an unresolved ambiguity. The domain lifecycle review follows the repository-owner policy separately from reader evidence.
Source, License, And Attribution
Locally authored workflow relying on the term identifiers and relation types declared above. Named sources were rechecked through the direct locators in Term Cases on 2026-09-08. No upstream definitional prose is reproduced.
IA Navigation
Parent: Design Terminology. Next: Cross-System Term Cases.