Viewgraph · 7 frames
A place across jurisdictions
How North Field and the Cedar Creek watershed are described by several independently governed spaces, crossed by two counties, and redrawn over time — and where a boundary change becomes a genuine identity question.
Viewgraph7 frames
Places and living systems
A place is not its coordinates
North Field and Cedar Creek, in the fictional Cedar Valley, each have one RID that encodes no location, owner, or jurisdiction.
RSM ID Learning Center
rsmid.org
Separate referents
Around one field, five different things
Each can be identified on its own terms; none is the identity of the field.
Rendering diagram…
Owner, operator, and issuer are separate roles. A sale changes ownership, not the field.
Jurisdiction
One watershed, two counties, one RID
Jurisdictions are relationships with sources and dates, held at the same time.
Rendering diagram…
The RID encodes no county, bioregion, or coordinates, so none of them can go stale inside it.
Representations
Two delineations disagree about one watershed
Each is a representation with its own source, method, and date. Nothing averages them.
Rendering diagram…
Because both cite one RID, the disagreement is visibly about the same watershed.
Equivalence
Overlap on a map does not make two places one
A headwaters model or a groundwater basin can overlap Cedar Creek and still be a different referent.
Rule
Same RID, or an authorized equivalence decision backed by evidence. A spatial join only finds candidates.
Temporal change
Most change is change of description
Some change is a genuine identity question that governance must answer.
A new boundary with its survey date. Which field is meant has not changed.
A joint authority takes over. Governance metadata changes; the RID does not.
A real identity question: governance decides, and records any successor with provenance.
Policy
When location is disputed, policy is explicit
A spring near the disputed divide keeps its identity; disclosure of its data waits for defined rules.
The spring and the watershed resolve as before.
Explicit handling rules apply, including conservative denial.
Read as text
- Places and living systemsA place is not its coordinatesNorth Field and Cedar Creek, in the fictional Cedar Valley, each have one RID that encodes no location, owner, or jurisdiction.Source: Document 08 v1.1 §2.2 — Cedar Valley is fictional; identifiers illustrative
- Separate referentsAround one field, five different thingsEach can be identified on its own terms; none is the identity of the field.North Field sits at the center. A survey polygon represents it, a county tax parcel overlaps it, Cedar Farm Cooperative operates it, a landowner owns the land beneath it, and it lies within the Cedar Creek watershed.Source: Document 08 v1.1 §2.2, §8.5 — Cedar Valley is fictional
- JurisdictionOne watershed, two counties, one RIDJurisdictions are relationships with sources and dates, held at the same time.The Cedar Creek watershed, with the illustrative RID 451.4ZFNMDBX5YHB833N, is related to an upper county and a lower county at the same time, and to a bioregion. None of these appears in the RID.Source: Document 08 v1.1 §8.3, §8.4 — identifiers illustrative
- RepresentationsTwo delineations disagree about one watershedEach is a representation with its own source, method, and date. Nothing averages them.The watershed council's 2030 delineation and the county water office's legacy delineation both represent the Cedar Creek watershed. They disagree at the eastern divide; both cite the same watershed.Source: Document 08 v1.1 §8.3, §13.3 — delineations fictional
- EquivalenceOverlap on a map does not make two places oneA headwaters model or a groundwater basin can overlap Cedar Creek and still be a different referent.RuleSource: Document 08 v1.1 §10.5, §15.3
- Temporal changeMost change is change of descriptionSome change is a genuine identity question that governance must answer.2032 · North Field resurveyedA new boundary with its survey date. Which field is meant has not changed.2033 · Cedar Creek stewardship changesA joint authority takes over. Governance metadata changes; the RID does not.A field divided and soldA real identity question: governance decides, and records any successor with provenance.Source: Document 08 v1.1 §13.3, §18.4 — continuity criteria not yet specified
- PolicyWhen location is disputed, policy is explicitA spring near the disputed divide keeps its identity; disclosure of its data waits for defined rules.Identity is not in doubtThe spring and the watershed resolve as before.Governance metadata isExplicit handling rules apply, including conservative denial.Source: Document 08 v1.1 §8.6 — scenario fictional
Sources and provenance
Normative basis
- Document 08 v1.1 — Section 2.2RID — RSM Identifier
- Document 08 v1.1 — Section 8.3Geographic context
- Document 08 v1.1 — Section 8.5Stewardship and ownership
- Document 08 v1.1 — Section 8.6Policy evaluation
- Document 08 v1.1 — Section 10.5Federation query
- Document 08 v1.1 — Section 13.3Example C — A regenerative watershed
- Document 08 v1.1 — Section 18.4Identity lifecycle state semantics
This viewgraph is an informative explanation. Where it and the specifications differ, Documents 08 and 09 v1.1 govern.
What it contains
- Document 08 v1.1 · normative
- Grounded directly in Document 08, the controlling standard. Cited by section.
- Interpretation
- Explanation or design rationale written for this Learning Center. It does not add requirements.
- Hypothetical example
- An illustrative scenario. Its identifiers are examples or fictional; none has been issued.
Related
Journey: A place and a living system · For everyone · Revised 2026-10-10 · Content ID viewgraph.place-across-jurisdictions (a page identifier on this site, not an RID)