docs: identifier durability — recorded cases and the machine-readable remedy

[damienriehl]

Adds this registry's first identifier scheme as docs/schema-proposal.md (matching the cecdr/ciclsaldr format), proposed machine-readable-natively: canonical R… IDs with citation forms (short titles, DS numbers) as permanent aliases and multilingual labels from day one — motivated by this repo's own record (the CLDDR→CMDDR rename preceded any minted ID). Also adds the README scheme section and the standard Task Force attribution line.

No existing identifier is changed, deprecated, or renamed by this PR. All argument lives in the position paper — this PR only demonstrates this repository's recorded cases and the remedied form: CatholicOS/foundation-docs#58 (discussion: CatholicOS/foundation-docs#57).

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01MoZuH8vKiwL2rsX3a1zSqc

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@damienriehl, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 59 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 596e1550-7a1e-4e4c-a5ff-a04a8b93a13f

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 13d3de9 and 5c9b04a.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• README.md
• docs/schema-proposal.md

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[JohnRDOrazio]

as discussed in person and in various meets, we need to distinguish the identifier schemes and taxonomies from the ontology classes and individuals: the ontology can carry labels in various languages, can implement opaque identifiers for the class or individual itself...

The purpose of the current repo is defining data structures: a clear taxonomy of the magisterium, with stable identifiers for various magisterial documents according to how they fit in the taxonomy. On one hand, Church tradition has already helped us with transparent identifiers: the Latin incipit of most documents serves as the identifier, i.e. evangelium-vitae, magnifica-humanitas. But before we can proceed with the registries of identifiers, we first need to work out a clear taxonomy, based on the "theology of the magisterium". I just merged PR #9 which was informed by a book by Francis Sullivan on the magisterium. The categorization of genres and authority levels is a work-in-progress, which needs empirical evidence and theological interpretation of the magisterium. The Vatican website can help somewhat, but we also need to keep in mind that the Vatican website doesn't offer a clear and well defined taxonomy, rather it acts as a "chancery filing system", which can inform the table of genres to some extent but not necessarily govern it.

There will not be a single way to identify all documents, not all documents carry the Latin incipit (for example papal Letters written in vernacular, which don't have a universal scope).