contextcontinuitylayer.orgAcademic Reference Compendium · 2026-02-27
Dey, A. K. (2001). Understanding and using context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 5(1), 4–7.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s007790170019Defines context operationally and formalizes 'context-aware' usage patterns; a primary anchor for definitions.
Schilit, B., Adams, N., & Want, R. (1994). Context-aware computing applications. Proceedings of WMCSA.
https://doi.org/10.1109/WMCSA.1994.16Early taxonomy of context-aware application behaviors; useful historical grounding.
Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32–64.
https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543Perception–comprehension–projection model; links context completeness to decision quality.
Strang, T., & Linnhoff-Popien, C. (2004). A context modeling survey. Proceedings of UbiComp.
Survey of context modeling approaches; helps structure a context-layer taxonomy.
Abowd, G. D., Dey, A. K., Brown, P. J., Davies, N., Smith, M., & Steggles, P. (1999). Towards a better understanding of context and context-awareness. Proceedings of HUC '99.
Early conceptual clarification of context and context-aware behavior in ubiquitous computing.
Fielding, R. T. (2000). Architectural styles and the design of network-based software architectures (Doctoral dissertation, UC Irvine).
https://roy.gbiv.com/pubs/dissertation/fielding_dissertation.pdfCanonical REST source; explains stateless constraints and architectural tradeoffs central to continuity discussions.
Eugster, P. T., Felber, P. A., Guerraoui, R., & Kermarrec, A.-M. (2003). The many faces of publish/subscribe. ACM Computing Surveys, 35(2), 114–131.
https://doi.org/10.1145/857076.857078Survey of pub/sub decoupling; foundational for event-driven context propagation.
Kleppmann, M. (2017). Designing data-intensive applications. O'Reilly Media.
Practical distributed systems reference for state, consistency, replication, and logs—useful for context persistence.
Gray, J., & Reuter, A. (1992). Transaction processing: Concepts and techniques. Morgan Kaufmann.
Classic transactions/ACID reference for continuity and correctness under concurrency.
Bernstein, P. A., & Newcomer, E. (2009). Principles of transaction processing (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.
Modernized transaction foundations; maps to 'transactional context' and lifecycle.
Moreau, L., et al. (2013). The PROV data model. W3C Recommendation.
https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/Standard model for provenance; supports auditability and contextual traceability.
NIST. (2006). Guide to computer security log management (SP 800-92).
https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-92Operational audit/log management guidance—supports transparency and accountability claims.
Hardt, D. (2012). The OAuth 2.0 authorization framework (RFC 6749).
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749Defines authorization delegation; useful to show what identity protocols cover (and don't).
Sakimura, N., et al. (2014). OpenID Connect Core 1.0. OpenID Foundation.
https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.htmlDefines OIDC authentication/claims layer on OAuth; supports 'SSO limits' framing.
World Wide Web Consortium. (2022). Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0. W3C Recommendation.
https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/Decentralized identifier standard; useful for 'distributed identity models.'
World Wide Web Consortium. (2022). Verifiable Credentials Data Model v1.1. W3C Recommendation.
https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model-1.1/Standard data model for portable claims; supports 'identity artifacts ≠ full context.'
NIST. (2017). Digital Identity Guidelines (SP 800-63-3). (Withdrawn Aug 1, 2025; superseded by SP 800-63-4).
https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-63-3High-authority identity assurance framework; include as historical baseline and note supersession.
Dragoni, N., et al. (2017). Microservices: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. In Present and Ulterior Software Engineering. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67425-4_12Survey of microservices and their tradeoffs; supports fragmentation across tool ecosystems.
Newman, S. (2015). Building microservices. O'Reilly Media.
Practical service decomposition reference; highlights integration/state challenges that drive context fragmentation.
Lamport, L. (1978). Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system. Communications of the ACM, 21(7), 558–565.
https://doi.org/10.1145/359545.359563Foundational for temporal context and causality in distributed logs/events.
Kreps, J., Narkhede, N., & Rao, J. (2011). Kafka: A distributed messaging system for log processing. NetDB.
Log-based event streaming; important practical substrate for context propagation.
Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119–158.
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol79/iss1/10/Foundational privacy theory framing appropriate information flows by context-specific norms.
Barth, A., Datta, A., Mitchell, J. C., & Nissenbaum, H. (2006). Privacy and contextual integrity: Framework and applications. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy.
Bridges contextual integrity into formal/security applications; useful for governance engineering.
European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation).
https://gdpr-info.eu/Legal basis for minimization, purpose limitation, transparency, and portability (e.g., Art. 5, 20).
OECD. (2013). The OECD privacy framework. OECD Publishing.
Widely cited policy principles that parallel minimization/purpose limitation; useful cross-jurisdiction anchor.
ISO. (2022). ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information security management systems — Requirements.
https://www.iso.org/standard/27001Core ISMS requirements; supports governance controls, auditability, and risk management.
NIST. (2023). AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0).
https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-frameworkOperational framework for AI risk; maps to governance and accountability for context-using systems.
ISO. (2023). ISO/IEC 23894:2023 Artificial intelligence — Risk management.
https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.htmlRisk management standard for AI; supports structured governance beyond privacy law.
Sandhu, R. S., Coyne, E. J., Feinstein, H. L., & Youman, C. E. (1996). Role-based access control models. Computer, 29(2), 38–47.
https://doi.org/10.1109/2.485845Formal access control; useful for 'permissioned context usage' implementation patterns.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.
Socio-technical governance framing; supports ethical risk discussions around context capture and misuse.
European Commission. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Act (final text as adopted).
EU AI governance backdrop; supports regulatory alignment claims for AI-integrated infrastructures.
Vaswani, A., et al. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30.
https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/hash/3f5ee243547dee91fbd053c1c4a845aa-Abstract.htmlTransformer architecture; context window and attention underpin modern LLM context handling.
Bahdanau, D., Cho, K., & Bengio, Y. (2015). Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. ICLR.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0473Introduced attention for seq2seq; often cited as precursor to transformer attention.
Lewis, P., et al. (2020). Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11401Formalizes RAG; central to 'structured context injection' strategies.
Karpukhin, V., et al. (2020). Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. EMNLP 2020.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.04906DPR retriever backbone for RAG systems; supports 'context sourcing' pipeline.
Guu, K., et al. (2020). REALM: Retrieval-augmented language model pre-training. ICML 2020.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.08909Retrieval-augmented pretraining; links memory/retrieval to context continuity.
Izacard, G., & Grave, E. (2021). Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering. EACL 2021.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.01282Fusion-in-Decoder style retrieval+generation; demonstrates scaling context via retrieved passages.
Graves, A., Wayne, G., & Danihelka, I. (2014). Neural Turing machines. arXiv:1410.5401.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5401Classic external-memory architecture; foundational for 'memory layer' framing in AI agents.
Weston, J., Chopra, S., & Bordes, A. (2014). Memory networks. arXiv:1410.3916.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.3916Introduces memory networks; links reasoning to stored context.
Sukhbaatar, S., Weston, J., Fergus, R., et al. (2015). End-to-end memory networks. arXiv:1503.08895.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.08895End-to-end differentiable memory; further supports long-range context handling.
Gama, J., et al. (2014). A survey on concept drift adaptation. ACM Computing Surveys, 46(4), Article 44.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2523813Survey of drift detection/adaptation; supports 'context drift' and lifecycle risk discussions.
Yao, S., et al. (2023). ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. arXiv:2210.03629.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.03629Agent pattern combining reasoning traces with tool actions; relevant to context scaffolding.
Shinn, N., & Labash, B. (2023). Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. arXiv:2303.11366.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366Iterative self-reflection for agents; ties to maintaining and correcting context over time.
Wei, J., et al. (2022). Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv:2201.11903.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903Reasoning scaffolds; relevant to 'multi-step context injection' and structured prompts.
Health Level Seven International. (2019). FHIR Release 4 (v4.0.1). HL7.
https://hl7.org/fhir/R4/Core interoperability standard enabling clinical data exchange and partial context portability.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (1996). Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/index.htmlBaseline privacy/security requirements in US healthcare; constrains 'permissioned context usage.'
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2017). Basel III: Finalising post-crisis reforms.
https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d424.htmGlobal banking capital/risk framework; relevant to contextual risk exposure and audit trails.
PCI Security Standards Council. (2022). PCI DSS v4.0.
https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/Payment card security standard; maps to transaction context controls and auditability.
U.S. General Services Administration. (2020). Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) security assessment framework.
https://www.fedramp.gov/US government cloud authorization baseline; relevant for GovTech 'context governance' controls.
IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive. (2026). Report 2026/1109.
https://eprint.iacr.org/2026/1109Establishes that prevailing industry crypto-shredding claims are vendor assertions rather than formal security reductions — no published reduction from 'key destroyed' to 'data computationally inaccessible' existed across surveyed implementations at time of writing. Underpins STACCR's 'verifiable, not promised' framing in the value-proposition section.