ADR 020 Vocabulary Alignment with Zargham 2026

ADR-020: Vocabulary Alignment with Zargham 2026

Status: Accepted Date: 2026-05-16 Deciders: Michael Zargham Related: ADR-003 Topological Framework Documented as Future Work; ADR-013 Simplicial Complex as Derived View When Built; ADR-021 Three Attestation Subclasses Ship in v0.1; Vertices Edges Faces; Topological Framework Future Work; Design Spec

Context

The Zargham 2026 RTM paper uses a specific vocabulary for the topological framework: assurance complex, assurance face, assurance triple/triangle, closed face, named approver, etc. This vocabulary is committed in the paper's mathematics and discussed in standards-engagement conversations. flexo-rtm v0.1 could either (a) adopt the paper's vocabulary verbatim in the RDF ontology, or (b) introduce a parallel project-specific vocabulary (e.g., "traceability triangle," "complete trace face") that the paper might be cited alongside but does not literally appear in. The latter creates a mapping problem between paper and implementation that future readers and standards engagement have to navigate. See Design Spec §6.8 and Topological Framework Future Work.

Decision

flexo-rtm v0.1 ontology uses the Zargham 2026 vocabulary verbatim: rtm:AssuranceComplex, rtm:AssuranceFace, rtm:AssuranceTriple (and supporting terms) are the canonical class names in the RDF ontology. Paper and implementation are mutually citable without translation. Per ADR-032 Methodology Agnosticism as Foundational Axiom, the vocabulary alignment is forward-compatible interop for the related topological research line, not a commitment that the topological framework is flexo-rtm's eventual destination. Adopters who choose to run topological analysis as a downstream-analysis mode benefit from the alignment (their accumulated data is in the right vocabulary without translation); adopters who do not are unaffected. The vocabulary is equally readable by other downstream-analysis paths (SLSA, GSN, ARP4754A, in-house) — its presence in v0.1 ontology does not privilege any one of them.

Consequences

Positive

• Paper and implementation are mutually citable — no translation table required for standards engagement, research dialogue, or reader navigation
• Adopters reading the Zargham 2026 paper can directly look up the same class names in the v0.1 ontology
• Forward-compatible interop for the topological research line (see ADR-003 Topological Framework Documented as Future Work and ADR-032 Methodology Agnosticism as Foundational Axiom) is built in — adopters who choose to run topological analysis as a downstream-analysis mode read rtm:AssuranceFace instances directly, and adopters who don't are unaffected
• Standards engagement (INCOSE IS 2026 paper, future OMG submissions) operates on a single vocabulary

Negative / Tradeoffs

• Adopters unfamiliar with the Zargham 2026 paper see vocabulary (assurance complex, face, triangle) that does not map to traditional RTM concepts directly; mitigated by class documentation and by the fact that traditional RTM analysis in v0.1 (see ADR-003a v0.1 Ships Traditional Analysis Only) operates over rtm:Requirement / rtm:DesignElement / rtm:VerificationActivity — the topological vocabulary surfaces only when the derived view is requested
• Locks the v0.1 vocabulary to the paper's terminology — major paper revisions ripple into ontology; mitigated by the paper being a research publication that converges before v0.1 release

Neutral

• The vocabulary commitment is one of the foundations-first decisions (see ADR-001 Foundations First Approach) — getting the vocabulary right at v0.1 is part of why foundations-first matters

Alternatives Considered

• Parallel "traceability triangle" vocabulary: Define rtm:TraceabilityTriangle (etc.) as project-specific vocabulary, cite the Zargham 2026 paper as related work, and provide a mapping document. Rejected: creates a translation burden between paper and implementation; every standards-engagement conversation has to navigate the mapping; researchers reading the paper cannot directly look up the class names in the ontology. Verbatim adoption is cleaner for the foundations-first cadence (see ADR-001 Foundations First Approach) where paper and implementation evolve together.

Implementation Notes

• v0.1 ontology defines: rtm:AssuranceComplex, rtm:AssuranceFace, rtm:AssuranceTriple, rtm:closedFace (boolean property), rtm:namedApprover (used in attestations — see ADR-021 Three Attestation Subclasses Ship in v0.1)
• These classes have documented mappings to the paper's mathematical objects; ontology annotations include the paper section reference
• The derived simplicial-complex view (see ADR-013 Simplicial Complex as Derived View When Built) produces instances of these classes from the underlying RTM graph
• See Vertices Edges Faces for the canonical vocabulary documentation

References

• Design Spec §6.8 (Vocabulary Alignment), §6.9 (Paper-Ontology Mapping)
• Vertices Edges Faces — the vocabulary documentation
• Topological Framework Future Work — the related research line whose vocabulary this aligns with
• ADR-003 Topological Framework Documented as Future Work — flexo-rtm does not commit to the framework
• ADR-032 Methodology Agnosticism as Foundational Axiom — vocabulary alignment as forward-compatible interop, not commitment to a specific downstream-analysis destination
• Zargham (2026), "Typed Simplicial Complexes for Requirements Traceability" (forthcoming)