Graph-Structured Declarative Computing (Grasp)

Graph-Structured Declarative Computing treats a graph as the primary substrate for intent, where queries describe desired shapes and resolvers fulfill them without explicit control flow.

Graph-Structured Declarative Computing (often shortened to “Grasp”) is a way of building systems where the graph is the system, not just a database. You declare what you want to exist, and the system resolves it by following structural relationships. Instead of writing step-by-step logic, you describe a target shape—fields, relationships, and outcomes—and allow resolvers to fill in missing parts only when queried. The graph becomes a living map of intent, and computation becomes traversal rather than a rigid instruction sequence.

Imagine that instead of calling functions, you ask the graph, “What should exist here?” The graph replies by revealing or generating the missing pieces—summaries, embeddings, derived metadata—without mutating the underlying structure unless you explicitly declare a mutation. Queries inquire; mutations commit. This boundary preserves stability: you can explore, simulate, and reason without accidentally changing the world.

Core Idea: Structure First, Execution Second

You start with outcomes, not procedures. If you want summaries for transcripts, you declare a `summary` field on `Transcript` and attach a resolver that knows how to generate it. When you query `summary`, it resolves. If you never ask, it never runs. Computation is lazy, localized, and tied to fields rather than global execution flows.

This is a shift from time-based orchestration to shape-based resolution:

It’s the same mental posture as declarative UI: you describe the desired state, and the system reconciles toward it. The outcome becomes the source of gravity.

Nodes as Potential, Properties as Computation

In Grasp, nodes are containers of potential. Each property can resolve independently, and each field is its own computation “island.” If you request `content`, only content resolves. If you request `vector`, only vector resolves. Nothing else fires unless you ask for it.

This yields practical benefits:

Queries vs. Mutations: A Cognitive Contract

A core boundary keeps the system clean:

Because queries do not write, you can explore safely. AI can test hypotheses, inspect missing data, and simulate outcomes without side effects. When you want to persist, you issue a mutation explicitly.

GraphQL as the Framework, Not the Layer

In Grasp, GraphQL is not just an API surface; it becomes the programming framework. The schema is the system. Types are semantic anchors. Resolvers are behavioral extension points. Queries and mutations are the programming interface. You don’t build a system and expose it via GraphQL—you build the system in GraphQL, and the graph is the runtime.

This produces a compact, legible architecture:

Declarative Causality Without Explicit Events

Grasp resembles event-driven architecture but removes explicit events and messages. Data presence is the signal. When a node of a certain shape exists, any process that consumes that shape can activate. The graph itself is the scheduler. This gives you the modularity of event systems without brittle message plumbing.

Shape-Driven Compatibility

Instead of wiring processes together manually, you declare what shapes they consume and produce. A process that consumes `MarkdownFileShape` and produces `ParsedMarkdownShape` will activate whenever the right shape appears. This decouples producers from consumers and makes the graph self-orienting.

Structural Introspection

Because structure is explicit, you can query for latent potential:

This is not just debugging; it’s a way to surface unfulfilled intent. The graph becomes a self-describing map of what is possible and what remains to be done.

AI as Collaborative Traverser

AI thrives in Grasp because the graph provides orientation. Instead of guessing how code flows, an agent can read shapes, declared affordances, and relationships. It can propose new processes, spot missing links, and safely explore via queries. AI stops being a code generator and becomes a structural collaborator.

Where It Changes Your Daily Work

The result is a system that scales without compounding complexity: more nodes don’t mean more global entanglement. Each node remains locally understandable, and each resolver stays small and explicit.

Going Deeper