Define the intake and assimilation practice (incoming/ drop zone -> frozen source snapshot -> Minimal Assimilation Profile -> disposition gate -> canon transformation -> versioned change notes) and run it on the first inputs. - infospace/assimilation/intake-and-assimilation-practice.md, incoming/README.md - assimilation/it-capability-canon: frozen source, comparison matrix, 26 mappings, 8 proposed changes, 7 open questions, decision record (adapt) - new model ITC-CAP with 41-capability machine-readable catalog, anchored to owning canon models; CILM rejected, Profile renamed, Provision made explicit - registered in canon.yaml / artifacts index / infospace.yaml; regenerated briefs, indexes, views; canon version 0.1.0-scaffold -> 0.2.0 + CHANGELOG - ITC-WP-0014 for promotion work; ITC-WP-0013 added to the workplan registry make validate: ok (65 artifacts, 0 errors/warnings). make test: 22 passed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
16 KiB
| id | title | short_name | type | standard_family | repository_context | recommended_path | status | version | source_version | source_body | source_file | assimilation | disposition | canonical_owner | namespace | classification | primary_cluster | catalog | imports | related | owned_concepts | created_at | updated_at | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| itc-cap:CapabilityModel | InfoTechCanon Capability Model | ITC-CAP | domain-model | InfoTechCanon | info-tech-canon | models/capability/InfoTechCanonCapabilityModel.md | proposed | 0.1.0 | 0.1 | Information Technology Capability Canon (ITCC) | infospace/assimilation/it-capability-canon/source/ITCapabilityCanonV0.1.md | assimilation/it-capability-canon | adapt | InfoTechCanonCapabilityModel | itc-cap | model | capability | models/capability/capabilities.yaml |
|
|
|
2026-08-14 | 2026-08-14 |
InfoTechCanon Capability Model
Short Name: ITC-CAP
Document Status: Proposed (assimilated, not yet promoted)
Version: 0.1.0
Document Type: InfoTechCanon Domain Model
Machine-readable catalog: models/capability/capabilities.yaml
Provenance: adapted from ITCC v0.1 — see assimilation/it-capability-canon
1. Purpose
The InfoTechCanon Capability Model defines what an information system must be able to do, independently of how that ability is implemented.
Every other InfoTechCanon model describes a structure: landscapes, data, tasks, policies, telemetry, delivery flow, access. None of them names the abilities those structures exist to deliver. The Landscape Model has deferred this ground explicitly since RC1 (§11.4: "The Landscape Model should keep only landscape-relevant references once a dedicated strategy/capability standard exists"). This model occupies it.
It sits deliberately between product and technology:
Consumer purpose / product
│ requires
▼
Capability ← owned here
│ provided by
▼
Service / provider ← ITC-LAND
│ implemented by
▼
Technology ← ITC-LAND
│ consumes
▼
Resource classes → cost ← classification owned here
2. Scope
2.1 In Scope
- the concept of a capability and its identity;
- capability profiles, quality dimensions, and evidence hooks;
- capability-to-capability and landscape-to-capability relationships;
- the provision of a capability by a provider in a context;
- the maturity scale that applies to a provision;
- the resource classes used to attribute cost to a provision;
- admission rules governing what may become a canonical capability;
- the canonical capability baseline held in
capabilities.yaml.
2.2 Out of Scope
- landscape entities, services, technologies, and runtime resources — ITC-LAND;
- policy, control, and evidence semantics — ITC-GOV;
- permission, grant, and authorization-decision semantics — ITC-ACCESS;
- telemetry, SLO measurement, and health — ITC-OBS;
- delivery pipeline semantics — ITC-DEVSECOPS;
- domain-specific business capabilities (hospital admission, underwriting, warehouse picking) — outside InfoTechCanon;
- product features, protocols, and named technologies.
3. Core Principle
A capability is an abstract, implementation-independent ability that an information system, service, platform, or product may require or provide.
Technologies are never capabilities:
Authentication capability
Keycloak implementation
Backup & Restore capability
pgBackRest implementation
Object Persistence capability
S3 implementation
The model is expected to remain stable while technologies, vendors, protocols, and architectures change beneath it.
4. Concepts
4.1 Capability
An abstract ability, identified by a stable dotted id (identity.authentication).
A capability has a purpose, profiles, quality dimensions, evidence hooks, and
relationships — but no maturity, no cost, and no implementation.
Capability ids are durable interfaces. Renaming or removing one requires explicit migration semantics.
4.2 CapabilityDomain
A navigation grouping (identity, data, commerce, …). Domains carry no
semantics: the model is a graph, per Core §6.4 Network Before Tree.
Capabilities may depend on or compose capabilities across domain boundaries.
4.3 CapabilityProfile
A constrained specialization of a capability that does not change its identity — subject, assurance level, protocol, consistency, tenancy, geography, and so on.
Distinction. A
CapabilityProfileis not a canonProfile(Core §8.6). A canon Profile constrains canon artifacts for an implementation context (e.g.small-saas). A CapabilityProfile constrains one capability. A canon Profile may select capability profiles; it is not one.
Prefer a new profile over a new capability whenever the underlying ability is unchanged (Core §6.5 Profiles, Not Forks).
4.4 CapabilityContract
The machine-readable definition of a capability: id, name, purpose, anchors,
profiles, quality dimensions, evidence hooks, relationships, and typical resource
classes. Contracts live in capabilities.yaml and are the single source of
truth. This document does not restate them.
4.5 CapabilityRequirement
A statement that a system, product, or consumer purpose needs a capability at a minimum maturity:
requires:
- capability: identity.authentication
minimum_maturity: D5
- capability: data.backup
minimum_maturity: D5
A CapabilityRequirement is a typed DemandSignal (ITC-GOV Purpose and Demand
extension) carrying a minimum maturity. It does not introduce a parallel
requirement vocabulary.
4.6 CapabilityProvider
A role played by a landscape entity — a service, service instance, platform team, or external provider — that supplies a capability in a context. The entity itself is owned by ITC-LAND; only the role is named here.
4.7 CapabilityProvision
The binding of provider × capability × context. Maturity, evidence, and resource consumption all attach here.
provision:
provider: auth.prod.eu
capability: identity.authentication
environment: production
maturity: D6
4.8 CapabilityMaturityLevel
| Level | State | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
D0 |
Absent | Capability is not provided |
D1 |
Experimental | Proof of concept or exploratory implementation |
D2 |
Available | A provider exists and can be consumed |
D3 |
Usable | Documented and practically consumable |
D4 |
Production | Approved for production dependency |
D5 |
Reliable | Reliability is measured and actively controlled |
D6 |
Scalable | Capacity and operational scaling are demonstrated |
D7 |
Strategic | Governed, reusable, deliberately evolved as a platform capability |
Maturity is not a canon artifact status (Core §10) and not a conformance level (Core §18). It describes a provision, not a document and not a consumer.
4.9 CapabilityQualityDimension
A named quality attribute relevant to a capability (rpo, rto, assurance,
decision_latency, explainability). The model names dimensions; targets and
measurement belong to ITC-LAND service level objectives and ITC-OBS.
4.10 CapabilityEvidenceHook
The evidence types expected to substantiate a provision (successful_restore_test,
measured_rpo, policy_tests). Evidence semantics are imported from ITC-GOV;
telemetry-derived evidence comes from ITC-OBS.
4.11 CapabilityResourceClass
| ID | Class | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
C |
Compute | Generic execution capacity |
S |
Storage | Persistence capacity |
N |
Networking | Information movement |
I |
Intelligence | Metered or purchased cognitive / semantic processing |
P |
Platform | Enabling operational overhead |
Resource consumption attaches to a provision or implementation, never to an abstract capability. This is what makes capability-oriented cost questions answerable ("what does Authentication cost per tenant?").
5. Normative Rules
CAP-R1 A Capability MUST be implementation-independent. Naming a technology, product, protocol, or vendor as a capability is invalid.
CAP-R2 Maturity MUST attach to a CapabilityProvision. A maturity claim on a Capability is invalid:
# invalid # valid
capability: identity.authentication provider: auth.prod.eu
maturity: D5 capability: identity.authentication
maturity: D5
CAP-R3 Every Capability MUST declare anchors — the canon model(s) owning the
concepts it exercises — or carry an explicit anchor_note recording that it is
new canon surface with no owner yet.
CAP-R4 A Capability MUST NOT define concepts owned elsewhere. security.policy
imports ITC-GOV Policy and Control; identity.authorization imports
ITC-ACCESS Permission, Grant, and AuthorizationDecision. (Core §6.2, §6.3.)
CAP-R5 Capability ids MUST be treated as durable interfaces. Rename or removal requires a ChangeRecord with migration semantics and a canon major version.
CAP-R6 A specialization that leaves the underlying ability unchanged MUST be expressed as a CapabilityProfile, not a new Capability.
CAP-R7 The Markdown document MUST NOT restate capability definitions held in
capabilities.yaml.
6. Admission Rules
A concept enters the canonical capability set only if it is:
- implementation-independent — survives replacement of the technology;
- reusable — occurs across materially different products or systems;
- demandable — a system can meaningfully require it;
- providable — something can meaningfully provide it;
- testable — evidence can show it exists and functions;
- profileable — specializations expressible as profiles;
- stable — likely to outlive individual products, protocols, and vendors.
Explicitly excluded: technologies; protocols and standards; product features; and domain-specific business capabilities.
7. Relationships
Capability to capability:
| Type | Meaning |
|---|---|
depends_on |
The capability normally requires another to operate |
may_use |
May use another without conceptual dependency |
composes |
A higher-level capability or pattern built from lower-level ones |
Landscape and consumer to capability:
| Type | Meaning |
|---|---|
requires |
A product, workload, service, or consumer purpose requires a capability |
provides |
A provider supplies a capability (creates a provision) |
implements |
A technology realizes all or part of a provider |
consumes |
A provision consumes resource classes |
Traversal from need to cost:
ConsumerPurpose --requires--> Capability <--provides-- Service
│ implements
▼
Technology
│ consumes
▼
C / S / N / I / P
8. Catalog
The baseline is 41 capabilities across 8 navigation domains, held in
models/capability/capabilities.yaml.
| Domain | Count | Capability ids |
|---|---|---|
| Identity & Access | 5 | identity.lifecycle, identity.authentication, identity.authorization, identity.federation, identity.organization |
| Data & State | 6 | data.transactional, data.object, data.cache, data.backup, data.archive, data.search |
| Integration & Communication | 5 | integration.api, integration.messaging, integration.exchange, integration.notification, integration.traffic |
| Runtime & Automation | 5 | runtime.execution, runtime.configuration, runtime.scheduling, runtime.workflow, runtime.deployment |
| Operations & Assurance | 5 | operations.observability, operations.alerting, operations.audit, operations.recovery, operations.continuity |
| Security & Governance | 6 | security.secrets, security.keys, security.policy, security.vulnerability, governance.evidence, governance.lifecycle |
| Commerce | 4 | commerce.metering, commerce.billing, commerce.payment, commerce.entitlement |
| Intelligence | 5 | intelligence.generation, intelligence.extraction, intelligence.embedding, intelligence.retrieval, intelligence.reasoning |
Seven capabilities (commerce.metering, commerce.billing, commerce.payment,
intelligence.generation, intelligence.extraction, intelligence.embedding,
intelligence.reasoning) are unanchored — new canon surface with no owning
model. This is accepted at proposed status and tracked as OQ-5.
9. Boundary with Other Models
| Model | Boundary |
|---|---|
| ITC-LAND | Owns services, technologies, runtime resources, SLOs. ITC-CAP names abilities; ITC-LAND names the things that provide and implement them. BusinessCapability / ProductCapability in ITC-LAND §11 should resolve to references here. |
| ITC-GOV | Owns policy, control, evidence, assurance. ITC-CAP names capability evidence hooks, not evidence semantics. Capability requirements are typed demand signals from the Purpose and Demand extension. |
| ITC-ACCESS | Owns subject, principal, permission, grant, decision. identity.* capabilities are abilities over those mechanisms. |
| CARING | Access-governance analysis. May import identity.* ids; ITC-CAP takes no position on access-governance analysis. |
| ITC-OBS | Owns telemetry, SLO measurement, health — the source of measured maturity evidence. |
| ITC-DATA | Owns datasets, schemas, classification, lineage, retention. data.* capabilities are abilities over those assets. |
| ITC-DEVSECOPS | Owns source→artifact→release→deployment. runtime.deployment anchors there. |
| ITC-NET | Owns addressing, routing, exposure, reachability. integration.traffic anchors there. |
| ITC-TASK | Owns work items, actions, dependencies. runtime.workflow is the ability to orchestrate them. |
10. Status and Promotion
This model enters the canon at status proposed. Promotion requires:
- resolution of assimilation open question OQ-2 (the
governance.*id prefix inside the Security & Governance domain) — blocking, because ids are durable interfaces; - publication of
capability.schema.yamlvalidating contracts; - at least one canon Profile expressing a real capability requirement set with evidence;
- formal mapping artifacts under
infospace/mappings/for each anchor.
Tracked in ITC-WP-0014.
11. Provenance
Adapted from the Information Technology Capability Canon (ITCC) v0.1 under
disposition adapt. The frozen source snapshot, comparison matrix, mappings,
proposed changes, decision record, and open questions are held in
infospace/assimilation/it-capability-canon/.
Changes made on adoption: Profile renamed CapabilityProfile; Provision made
explicit; per-capability anchors added; requirements bound to Purpose and
Demand; the proposed CILM landscape model rejected in favour of ITC-LAND;
capability definitions moved wholly into the machine-readable catalog.