139 lines
6.2 KiB
Markdown
139 lines
6.2 KiB
Markdown
|
# Assimilation — Information Technology Capability Canon (ITCC) v0.1
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Record:** `assimilation/it-capability-canon`
|
|||
|
|
**Source:** ITCC v0.1 (`source/ITCapabilityCanonV0.1.md`, `source/capabilities.yaml`)
|
|||
|
|
**Disposition:** `adapt`
|
|||
|
|
**Status:** decided
|
|||
|
|
**Canon version produced:** `0.2.0`
|
|||
|
|
**Date:** 2026-08-14
|
|||
|
|
**Practice:** [`../intake-and-assimilation-practice.md`](../intake-and-assimilation-practice.md)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 1. Intake
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Both files arrived in `incoming/` and were moved unmodified into `source/` as the
|
|||
|
|
frozen snapshot. The source document itself (§15) asks to be reconciled with and
|
|||
|
|
incorporated into InfoTechCanon, so the request is explicit rather than inferred.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 2. Scoping
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**In scope:** the capability object model, inclusion rules, exclusions, the eight
|
|||
|
|
navigation domains and 41-capability baseline, capability relationship types, the
|
|||
|
|
D0–D7 maturity scale, the C/S/N/I/P resource model, evidence hooks, and the
|
|||
|
|
capability contract shape.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Out of scope:** the proposed CILM landscape model (§15) — the canon Landscape
|
|||
|
|
Model already owns that ground; and the FinOps cost formula (§13) beyond the
|
|||
|
|
resource classification itself.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 3. Concept extraction
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
18 concepts extracted — see [`extracted-concepts.yaml`](extracted-concepts.yaml).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 4. Concept comparison
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
See [`comparison-matrix.md`](comparison-matrix.md). Summary:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- `missing_concept`: Capability, CapabilityDomain, Provision, MaturityLevel,
|
|||
|
|
QualityDimension, EvidenceHook, CapabilityContract, ResourceClass, and the
|
|||
|
|
capability relationship types
|
|||
|
|
- `already_covered`: Implementation, Evidence, CILM, and four of the source's
|
|||
|
|
design principles (all four restate existing Core principles)
|
|||
|
|
- `covered_differently`: Profile (name collision with Core §8.6), Provider
|
|||
|
|
- `narrower_than_existing`: Requirement (a typed DemandSignal), quality dimensions
|
|||
|
|
- `viewpoint_difference`: the entire capability baseline against the domain models
|
|||
|
|
— abilities versus the structures that realize them
|
|||
|
|
- `conflicting_concept`: one naming conflict only (`governance.*` prefix, OQ-2)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 5. Gap and conflict analysis
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Primary gap filled.** The canon models landscape, data, security, delivery,
|
|||
|
|
network, observability, governance, organization, task, and access, but nowhere
|
|||
|
|
states *what an information system must be able to do*. The Landscape Model
|
|||
|
|
defers exactly this (§11.4). Consumers hit the gap in practice: repo-scoping
|
|||
|
|
already needs `Ability` / `Capability` / `Feature` distinctions.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**No definitional conflicts.** Not one source concept redefines a concept an
|
|||
|
|
existing model owns. The relationship is anchoring, not overlap — which is why
|
|||
|
|
the disposition is `adapt` rather than `observe`.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Conflicts found:** (1) `Profile` name collision, resolved by renaming to
|
|||
|
|
`CapabilityProfile`; (2) inconsistent `governance.*` ID prefix, unresolved and
|
|||
|
|
recorded as OQ-2, blocking promotion beyond `proposed`.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Risk.** A capability catalog is the kind of artifact that quietly becomes a
|
|||
|
|
second ontology. Mitigated by PC-3: every capability must name the canon model(s)
|
|||
|
|
that own the concepts it exercises.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 6. Canon impact proposal
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Eight proposals — see [`proposed-changes.md`](proposed-changes.md). All eight were
|
|||
|
|
accepted; PC-6 is an accepted *rejection* (CILM not adopted). Six further items
|
|||
|
|
are deferred to `ITC-WP-0014`.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 7. Mapping and publication
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
[`mappings.yaml`](mappings.yaml) records 26 concept-level mappings to canonical
|
|||
|
|
owners. Formal per-pair mapping artifacts under `infospace/mappings/` are deferred
|
|||
|
|
to ITC-WP-0014.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Published as:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- `infospace/models/capability/InfoTechCanonCapabilityModel.md`
|
|||
|
|
- `infospace/models/capability/capabilities.yaml`
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## Decision Record
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Context.** InfoTechCanon has no owner for abstract capability. A well-formed
|
|||
|
|
draft vocabulary (41 capabilities, machine-readable, explicitly written for
|
|||
|
|
reconciliation with InfoTechCanon) was submitted for absorption. The Landscape
|
|||
|
|
Model has deferred this ground since RC1.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Decision.** Disposition `adapt`. Adopt the vocabulary as a new domain model,
|
|||
|
|
`InfoTechCanonCapabilityModel`, restructured to canon shape: canon frontmatter and
|
|||
|
|
declared ownership, imports instead of redefinitions, per-capability anchors to
|
|||
|
|
owning models, `Profile` renamed to `CapabilityProfile`, `Provision` made
|
|||
|
|
explicit, CILM rejected. The artifact enters at status `proposed`.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Options considered.**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1. *`observe`* — record and change nothing. Rejected: leaves a known gap open while
|
|||
|
|
consumers work around it.
|
|||
|
|
2. *`map` only* — map the source to existing models without a new artifact.
|
|||
|
|
Rejected: there is no artifact to map *to*; capability has no owner.
|
|||
|
|
3. *`adopt` as-is* — take the document in unchanged. Rejected: it carries a name
|
|||
|
|
collision on `Profile`, a competing landscape model, an implicit provision
|
|||
|
|
bearer, and no anchoring to canon owners.
|
|||
|
|
4. *`adapt`* — chosen.
|
|||
|
|
5. *Classify as a standard rather than a model.* Deferred as OQ-1; a capability
|
|||
|
|
set is a broad domain structure, which is the definition of a model here.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Rationale.** The source passes its own inclusion rules and the canon's:
|
|||
|
|
implementation-independent, reusable, demandable, providable, testable,
|
|||
|
|
profileable, stable. It conflicts with nothing the canon already owns. The two
|
|||
|
|
genuinely new surfaces (`commerce.*`, `intelligence.*`) extend the canon into
|
|||
|
|
areas no existing model reaches. Adapting rather than adopting preserves single
|
|||
|
|
canonical ownership.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Consequences.**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- Canon version `0.2.0`; the canon gains a twelfth model and 41 capability IDs
|
|||
|
|
that are treated as durable interfaces from here on.
|
|||
|
|
- The Landscape Model's deferred strategy/capability concepts
|
|||
|
|
(`BusinessCapability`, `ProductCapability`) now have a destination; the
|
|||
|
|
Landscape §11.4 note should be revised — deferred to ITC-WP-0014.
|
|||
|
|
- Capability IDs must not be renamed without migration semantics, which makes
|
|||
|
|
OQ-2 blocking for promotion.
|
|||
|
|
- `commerce.*` and `intelligence.*` create canon surface with no anchoring model
|
|||
|
|
(OQ-5), an accepted weakness at `proposed` status.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Review trigger.** Promotion beyond `proposed` requires: OQ-2 resolved, the
|
|||
|
|
contract schema published, and at least one profile expressing a real capability
|
|||
|
|
requirement set with evidence.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Supersession.** None. A later ITCC revision arrives as a new intake with a new
|
|||
|
|
`source_version`, never as an edit to this frozen snapshot.
|