Skip to content

Research Adoption Landscape

This document outlines how major research communities are likely to view Civic Interconnect (CI) and the Civic Exchange Protocol (CEP).
It summarizes why each community might engage, where skepticism might arise, and how CI positions itself for constructive collaboration.

1. Entity Resolution (Computer Science / Database Theory)

Why They Might Engage

  • Formal Foundations (Category Theory)
    CI/CEP models a civic identity system using categorical constructs, where SNFEI behaves like a universal property (a limit over normalized attributes).
    This directly addresses a core CS challenge: entity resolution without ad-hoc heuristics.

  • Tiered Identity Architecture
    SNFEI (Tier 3) provides a scalable open identity layer that links up to LEI (Tier 1) and SAM UEI (Tier 2).
    This multi-tier architecture matches the complexity seen in large, real-world ER problems.

  • Confidence Scoring Integration
    The explicit confidenceScore parallels CMU work on data confidence, uncertainty propagation, and probabilistic entity matching.

Why They Might Be Skeptical

  • Application Rather Than Breakthrough
    ER researchers may consider CI's methods to be an application of known techniques (e.g., Splink-style blocking, Fellegi–Sunter logic) rather than a novel algorithm.

  • Governance and Longevity Concerns
    They may worry whether CI/CEP will be maintained long-term or become another abandoned identity standard.

Engagement

  • CI will publish a formal specification of the SNFEI functor, universal property, and resolution logic.
  • CI will provide benchmark datasets comparing SNFEI performance to LEI/UEI-style inference.
  • CI is open to collaborating on probabilistic confidence scoring research and error propagation.

2. Campaign Finance & Policy Analysis (Political Science)

Why They Might Engage

  • Cross-Domain Linking
    Policy researchers excel at analyzing campaign finance data within their silo, but may lack cross-silo tools to connect it to:
  • procurement
  • lobbying
  • nonprofit contributions
  • grants and contracts

CEP's EntityRecord, RelationshipRecord, and ExchangeRecord directly enable funding-chain analysis across sectors.

  • Automated Funding Path Tracing
    CTags describing morphism types (GRANT, CONTRACT_FEE, DONATION, PASS-THROUGH, etc.) make automated tracing auditable and reproducible.

Why They Might Be Skeptical

  • Loss of Domain-Specific Detail
    CEP acts as a structural transport layer. Policy analysts often need extremely granular attributes (committee type, election cycle).
    They may worry CI "abstracts away" detail.

  • Existing Internal ID Systems
    Groups like DIME already maintain elaborate proprietary IDs.
    They may ask: Why adopt another ID system until everyone else does?

Engagement

  • CI provides CEP's interconnect strategy - it does not replace domain standards, it links them.
  • CI provides worked examples showing how a campaign finance ID maps to SNFEI and survives joining across datasets.
  • CI develops a Funding Flow Linkage Script demo using Relationships, Exchanges, and CTags.

3. Open Data / Interoperability / Global Standards

Why They Might Engage

  • Strong Alignment with Open Data Principles
    CEP is vendor-neutral, open-source, and schema-driven.
    It aligns with the Open Data Charter, W3C PROV, and MIT's research data interoperability frameworks.

  • Explicit Provenance & Trust Layer
    The envelope's attestations, timestamps, and CTags are directly relevant to modern data governance, AI transparency, and auditability.

  • Extensible Schema Architecture
    CEP's use of $ref, allOf, controlled vocabularies, and stable URIs matches best practices in international standards efforts.

Why They Might Be Skeptical

  • No Global Mandate (Yet)
    LEI succeeded because the G20 mandated it.
    CEP does not have a regulatory or institutional mandate, making adoption voluntary.

  • Complexity Cost
    The envelope structure is comprehensive.
    Standards bodies may ask whether the complexity is appropriate for small jurisdictions or lightweight open-data platforms.

Engagement

  • CI provides profiles (minimal subsets) of CEP for lightweight use cases.
  • CI publishes machine-readable vocabularies following W3C best practices.
  • CI will define and publish a CEP Lite profile schema (e.g., cep.lite.entity.schema.json) that limits required fields to the absolute minimum (e.g., only verifiableId, recordKind, legalName, jurisdictionIso). This directly addresses the Complexity Cost concern for lightweight platforms.
  • CI will ensure all vocabularies and schemas adhere to W3C best practices (stable URIs, versioning) and that the Attestation model provides a direct path to W3C PROV and Verifiable Credentials compliance.

Summary Table

Research Community Possible Incentives Possible Concerns CI Contributions
Entity Resolution Formal categorical model, canonical identity layer Not a novel algorithm, governance concerns Publish formal proof, provide benchmarks
Policy / Campaign Finance Cross-silo linking, automated flow tracing Loss of granularity, existing IDs Show mappings, demos, wrappers
Open Data Standards Interoperability, provenance, extensibility No mandate, perceived complexity Provide profiles, pilots, vocabularies