info-tech-canon/infospace/kernel/InfoTechCanonKernelMap.md

InfoTechCanon Kernel Map

Short Name: ITC-KERNEL-MAP Document Status: Draft 1 Version: RC1-kernel-map Date: 2026-05-23 Repository Context: info-tech-canon Document Type: Kernel Integration Map Purpose: Consolidate the first-generation InfoTechCanon seed standards into one coherent kernel and show how the CARING standard fits into the canon.

---

1. Purpose

The InfoTechCanon Kernel Map describes how the first generation of InfoTechCanon seed standards fit together.

It provides:

• the initial canon kernel overview,
• the dependency and import graph,
• concept ownership boundaries,
• cross-standard integration points,
• the place of CARING within the canon,
• shared mechanisms that should be centralized in InfoTechCanonCore,
• known overlap and boundary tensions,
• first implementation profiles,
• first assimilation candidates,
• and the recommended refactoring sequence.

This document is not itself a domain standard. It is a coordination artifact used to stabilize the kernel before further domain expansion.

---

2. Kernel Overview

The current InfoTechCanon kernel consists of these seed standards:

InfoTechCanonCore
InfoTechCanonInformationSpaceModel
InfoTechCanonLandscapeModel
InfoTechCanonOrganizationModel
InfoTechCanonGovernanceModel
InfoTechCanonTaskModel
InfoTechCanonTaggingStandard
InfoTechCanonAccessControlModel
InfoTechCanonSecurityModel
InfoTechCanonDataModel
InfoTechCanonDevSecOpsModel
InfoTechCanonNetworkModel
InfoTechCanonObservabilityModel

Together they form a coherent first-generation semantic substrate for building interoperable information-processing systems.

A compact mental model:

Core              = how the canon works.
Information Space = how canon knowledge is stored, linked, retrieved, and reused.
Landscape         = what systems, services, resources, and runtime entities exist.
Organization      = who can act, belong, own, steward, operate, and be responsible.
Governance        = how action is directed, constrained, justified, reviewed, and evidenced.
Task              = what work exists and how it becomes actionable, committed, and completed.
Tagging           = how entities are lightly classified, filtered, and retrieved.
Access Control    = who/what may perform which action on which resource under which conditions.
Security          = threats, weaknesses, vulnerabilities, exposures, findings, incidents, and posture.
Data              = datasets, schemas, classification, lineage, quality, contracts, and data products.
DevSecOps         = source-to-artifact-to-release-to-deployment delivery flow and evidence.
Network           = addressing, topology, routing, policy, reachability, flow, exposure, and state.
Observability     = telemetry, signals, logs, metrics, traces, events, alerts, SLOs, and evidence.

---

3. Kernel Dependency Graph

3.1 Foundational Layer

InfoTechCanonCore
  ├── concept ownership
  ├── mappings
  ├── assimilation
  ├── patterns
  ├── profiles
  ├── validation
  ├── conformance
  ├── versioning
  ├── provenance
  ├── agent briefs
  └── canon interface cards

InfoTechCanonCore should be imported by every other standard.

3.2 Knowledge Substrate Layer

InfoTechCanonInformationSpaceModel
  imports:
    - InfoTechCanonCore
    - InfoTechCanonTaggingStandard
    - InfoTechCanonDataModel
    - InfoTechCanonGovernanceModel

The Information Space Model defines how standards and related artifacts become a retrievable, markdown-first, agent-usable infospace.

3.3 Actor / Rule / World Triad

InfoTechCanonLandscapeModel
  owns: systems, services, resources, runtime, infrastructure context

InfoTechCanonOrganizationModel
  owns: actors, roles, memberships, responsibility, authority, accountability

InfoTechCanonGovernanceModel
  owns: policies, rules, decisions, controls, risk, exceptions, evidence

This is the first conceptual triad:

Landscape    = what exists.
Organization = who acts.
Governance   = how action is directed and constrained.

3.4 Execution and Classification Layer

InfoTechCanonTaskModel
  imports:
    - Organization
    - Governance
    - Landscape

InfoTechCanonTaggingStandard
  imports:
    - Task
    - Core
    - optionally Organization / Governance / Landscape for tag dimensions

Task turns systems, actors, and governance into actionable work. Tagging classifies and retrieves work and other entities.

3.5 Control and Protection Layer

InfoTechCanonAccessControlModel
  imports:
    - Organization
    - Governance
    - Landscape
    - Task
    - Tagging

InfoTechCanonSecurityModel
  imports:
    - Governance
    - Access Control
    - Landscape
    - Task
    - Data
    - DevSecOps
    - Network
    - Observability

Access Control owns authorization semantics. Security owns adversarial and defensive security semantics.

3.6 Information and Delivery Layer

InfoTechCanonDataModel
  imports:
    - Landscape
    - Organization
    - Governance
    - Security
    - Access Control
    - Task
    - Tagging

InfoTechCanonDevSecOpsModel
  imports:
    - Landscape
    - Organization
    - Governance
    - Task
    - Security
    - Access Control
    - Data
    - Observability

Data owns semantic data assets. DevSecOps owns secure delivery flow and evidence.

3.7 Runtime Understanding Layer

InfoTechCanonNetworkModel
  imports:
    - Landscape
    - Governance
    - Security
    - Access Control
    - Data
    - DevSecOps
    - Observability

InfoTechCanonObservabilityModel
  imports:
    - Landscape
    - Organization
    - Governance
    - Task
    - Security
    - Access Control
    - Data
    - DevSecOps
    - Network

Network owns communication and reachability. Observability owns signals and runtime understanding.

---

4. Concept Ownership Map

4.1 Core Owns Canon Machinery

Concept Family	Canonical Owner
Standard	Core
Concept	Core
RelationshipDefinition	Core
Pattern	Core
Profile	Core
Mapping	Core
Assimilation	Core
ValidationRule	Core
ConformanceLevel	Core
VersionRecord	Core
ProvenanceRecord	Core
AgentBrief	Core
CanonInterfaceCard	Core

4.2 Information Space Owns Knowledge Packaging

Concept Family	Canonical Owner
InformationSpace	Information Space
KnowledgeArtifact	Information Space
MarkdownDocument	Information Space
ConceptPage	Information Space
Chunk	Information Space
RetrievalUnit	Information Space
Index	Information Space
Link / Backlink	Information Space
Citation / SourceReference	Information Space
EmbeddingRecord	Information Space
RetrievalEvaluation	Information Space

4.3 Landscape Owns System Reality

Concept Family	Canonical Owner
BusinessService	Landscape
ApplicationService	Landscape
TechnicalService	Landscape
SoftwareSystem reference	Landscape / later Architecture
RuntimeResource	Landscape
Environment	Landscape
Workload	Landscape
Endpoint reference	Landscape / Network split
DeploymentRecord reference	Landscape / DevSecOps split

4.4 Organization Owns Actors and Responsibility

Concept Family	Canonical Owner
Person	Organization
Agent as organizational actor	Organization
Team	Organization
Organization	Organization
OrganizationalUnit	Organization
Role	Organization
Position	Organization
Membership	Organization
Responsibility	Organization
Authority	Organization
Accountability	Organization
Ownership / Stewardship	Organization

4.5 Governance Owns Rules and Assurance

Concept Family	Canonical Owner
Policy	Governance
Rule	Governance
Requirement	Governance
Obligation	Governance
Decision	Governance
Approval	Governance
ControlObjective	Governance
Control	Governance
Risk	Governance
Exception / Waiver	Governance
Evidence	Governance
Audit / Assurance	Governance

4.6 Task Owns Work

Concept Family	Canonical Owner
WorkItem	Task
Option	Task
Task	Task
Action / NextAction	Task
Step / Move	Task
Exploration / Experiment	Task
Commitment	Task
Blocker / Dependency	Task
WorkflowState	Task
Outcome / AcceptanceCriteria / DefinitionOfDone	Task

4.7 Tagging Owns Lightweight Classification

Concept Family	Canonical Owner
Tag	Tagging
TagDefinition	Tagging
TagScheme	Tagging
TagNamespace	Tagging
TagCategory	Tagging
TagAssignment	Tagging
TagProfile	Tagging
TagMapping	Tagging
TagValidationRule	Tagging

4.8 Access Control Owns Authorization

Concept Family	Canonical Owner
Subject	Access Control, as access-control subject view
Principal	Access Control
Resource as protected access target	Access Control / Landscape reference
Action as access operation	Access Control
Permission	Access Control
Privilege	Access Control
Entitlement	Access Control
Grant	Access Control
AccessRole	Access Control
RoleBinding	Access Control
AuthorizationRequest	Access Control
AuthorizationDecision	Access Control
PolicyEnforcementPoint	Access Control
AccessReview	Access Control / Governance reference
BreakGlassAccess	Access Control / Governance reference

4.9 Security Owns Adversarial and Defensive Semantics

Concept Family	Canonical Owner
Threat	Security
ThreatActor	Security
Weakness	Security
Vulnerability	Security
Exposure as security condition	Security / Network reference
SecurityFinding	Security
AttackPath	Security
Mitigation	Security
Detection	Security
SecurityIncident	Security
SecurityPosture	Security

4.10 Data Owns Data Semantics

Concept Family	Canonical Owner
DataDomain	Data
Dataset	Data
DataProduct	Data
Schema	Data
Field	Data
DataElement	Data
DataClassification	Data
DataLineage	Data
DataQualityRule	Data
DataContract	Data
ProcessingPurpose	Data
RetentionRuleReference	Data / Governance reference

4.11 DevSecOps Owns Delivery Flow

Concept Family	Canonical Owner
Repository as delivery source	DevSecOps / Information Space if knowledge repo
Commit	DevSecOps
PullRequest	DevSecOps
Pipeline	DevSecOps
PipelineRun	DevSecOps
TestRun / ScanRun	DevSecOps
ArtifactVersion	DevSecOps
SBOM	DevSecOps
Provenance / Attestation / Signature	DevSecOps
Release	DevSecOps
DeploymentExecution / DeploymentRecord	DevSecOps
DeploymentVerification	DevSecOps / Observability reference

4.12 Network Owns Communication Semantics

Concept Family	Canonical Owner
NetworkDomain	Network
Prefix / IPAddress / DNSRecord	Network
NetworkDevice	Network
Interface / Link / Path	Network
NetworkSegment / VLAN / VRF	Network
Route / RouteTable	Network
Endpoint as network surface	Network / Landscape reference
NetworkPolicy	Network
NetworkIntent	Network
NetworkFlow / ObservedFlow	Network / Observability reference
ReachabilityClaim	Network
Exposure as reachability condition	Network / Security reference

4.13 Observability Owns Signals

Concept Family	Canonical Owner
Telemetry	Observability
Metric	Observability
LogRecord	Observability
Trace / Span	Observability
Event as observability signal	Observability
Profile as runtime profile	Observability
AlertRule / Alert	Observability
SLI / SLO / ErrorBudget	Observability
HealthState	Observability
ObservedIncident	Observability / Task or ITSM reference
ObservabilityEvidence	Observability / Governance reference

---

5. CARING Fit in InfoTechCanon

5.1 Summary

The uploaded CARING Standard — Canonical Access Roles for Information Needs Governance fits well into InfoTechCanon as a cross-domain access-governance standard.

It should not be absorbed entirely into InfoTechCanonAccessControlModel, because CARING has a stronger and more specific purpose:

CARING = orthogonal access-governance analysis and design standard
for information products and runtime platforms.

It belongs as a named standard/profile family:

standards/access-control/caring/
  InfoTechCanonCaringAccessGovernanceStandard.md

or:

standards/caring/
  CARING.md

Recommended canonical name inside InfoTechCanon:

InfoTechCanonCaringAccessGovernanceStandard

Recommended status:

external-user-originated standard candidate
or
internal specialized standard candidate

5.2 Why CARING Is Valuable

CARING contributes a mature orthogonal decomposition for access governance.

Its central insight is that a role is not enough. Effective access emerges from several independent dimensions:

Subject
Organization Relation
Canonical Role
Scope
Plane
Capability
Exposure Mode
Condition
Lifecycle State
Restriction
Exposure Event

This directly supports InfoTechCanon’s orthogonality principle.

5.3 CARING as a Stress Test

CARING should become one of the first benchmark standards for testing the kernel because it crosses many domains:

Organization: subject, relation, role, lifecycle responsibility.
Access Control: capability, permissions, grants, effective access.
Governance: restrictions, exposure events, lifecycle review, conditions.
Security: induced access, privilege escalation, secret exposure.
Data: exposure mode, plaintext, masked, synthetic, cross-tenant aggregate.
Network: scope, platform, cluster, namespace, runtime, reachability implications.
DevSecOps: CI/CD service accounts, build plane, release lifecycle, agents.
Observability: audit plane, logs, evidence, post-review.
Task: remediation, redesign, review work from CARING findings.
Tagging: classification of access descriptors and findings.

5.4 CARING Placement Options

Option A: Access Control Profile

InfoTechCanonAccessControlModel
└── profiles/
    └── caring-access-governance-profile.md

Pros:

• lightweight integration,
• easy to use as a profile over access-control entities,
• good first step.

Cons:

• CARING is richer than a normal profile,
• it owns canonical role semantics that overlap with Organization,
• it includes governance and analysis process concepts.

Option B: Specialized Access-Governance Standard

InfoTechCanonCaringAccessGovernanceStandard

Pros:

• preserves CARING as a coherent standard,
• respects its analytical and prescriptive modes,
• avoids forcing all CARING concepts into Access Control,
• allows CARING to import Access, Organization, Governance, Security, Data, DevSecOps, and Network.

Cons:

• adds another standard to the kernel,
• requires explicit ownership decisions.

Option C: Pattern Language Only

CARING could be turned into patterns such as:

Role Is Not Permission
Declared vs Effective Access
Induced Access Analysis
Exposure Event
Tenant Isolation Boundary
Agent Capability Ceiling

Pros:

• useful immediately.

Cons:

• loses the systematic descriptor model.

5.5 Recommendation

Use Option B.

CARING should become a specialized standard under the Access/Governance cluster:

InfoTechCanonCaringAccessGovernanceStandard

It should import the kernel standards rather than redefine their generic concepts.

The standard should be treated as:

a specialized orthogonal access-governance analysis standard
built on top of Core, Organization, Governance, Access Control,
Security, Data, DevSecOps, Network, Observability, Task, and Tagging.

---

6. CARING Concept Ownership and Import Map

6.1 CARING Concepts That Should Remain Owned by CARING

These are distinctive enough to be owned by CARING:

CARINGAccessDescriptor
CARINGCanonicalRole
OrganizationRelation as CARING access dimension
Plane as CARING access dimension
ExposureMode
ExposureEvent
DerivedCapability
InducedAccess
DeclaredAccessMap
EffectiveAccessMap
CapabilityProfileMap
RoleBundlingFinding
TenantBoundaryFinding
InducedAccessFinding
CARINGAnalysisFitnessTest
CARINGAnalysisProcedure
CARINGRedesignProcedure

6.2 CARING Concepts That Should Import from Organization

CARING Term	InfoTechCanon Owner
Subject as human/group/organization/service/agent/system/device/process	Access Control / Organization split
Human	Organization
Organization	Organization
Group	Organization / Access Control depending on use
Agent	Organization
Authority as actor	Organization / Governance
Lifecycle responsibility posture	Organization / CARING specialization
Vendor / Customer / Community / Consultant / ServiceProvider	Organization relation profile, owned by CARING as access-governance dimension

6.3 CARING Concepts That Should Import from Access Control

CARING Term	InfoTechCanon Owner
Subject as access subject	Access Control
Declared Access	Access Control / CARING specialization
Effective Access	Access Control / CARING specialization
Capability	Access Control
Capability Profile	Access Control / CARING specialization
Native Policy Object	Access Control
Access Assignment	Access Control
Restriction as deny effect	Access Control / Governance
Default Deny	Access Control

6.4 CARING Concepts That Should Import from Governance

CARING Term	InfoTechCanon Owner
Condition	Governance / Access Control depending on enforcement
Lifecycle review	Governance
Exposure Event review	Governance
Legal hold	Governance
Authority source	Governance
Approval	Governance
Post-review	Governance
Policy linting	Governance / Access Control
Conformance tests	Core / Governance

6.5 CARING Concepts That Should Import from Security

CARING Term	InfoTechCanon Owner
PrivilegeEscalationBlocked	Security / Access Control
X-Adversarial	Security
X-Misconfiguration	Security / Governance
X-InducedAccess	Security / CARING
X-PrivilegeEscalation	Security / CARING
SecretMaterial exposure risk	Security / Data / Access Control
Induced access as security finding	Security / CARING

6.6 CARING Concepts That Should Import from Data

CARING Term	InfoTechCanon Owner
Plaintext	Data / Security context
Masked	Data
Aggregated	Data
Synthetic	Data
Pseudonymous	Data
Encrypted	Security / Data
CrossTenantAggregate	Data / Governance
Field	Data
Dataset	Data

6.7 CARING Concepts That Should Import from DevSecOps

CARING Term	InfoTechCanon Owner
Build Plane	DevSecOps / CARING access plane
CI/CD Service as Builder	DevSecOps / Access Control
PipelineBound condition	DevSecOps / Governance / Access
DeploymentDeployer profile	DevSecOps / CARING
Agentic coding system	DevSecOps / Organization / Access

6.8 CARING Concepts That Should Import from Network

CARING Term	InfoTechCanon Owner
Cluster	Network / Landscape depending on context
Namespace	Network / Landscape / Platform context
Tenant boundary network implications	Network / Security / Access
Runtime Plane network exposure	Network / CARING

6.9 CARING Concepts That Should Import from Observability

CARING Term	InfoTechCanon Owner
Audit Plane evidence	Observability / Governance
Logged	Observability / Governance
Recorded	Observability / Governance
PostReviewRequired evidence	Governance / Observability
Access event evidence	Observability / Access Control

---

7. CARING-Driven Refactor Suggestions

7.1 Access Control Model Should Add or Strengthen

The Access Control seed should explicitly include:

DeclaredAccess
EffectiveAccess
DerivedCapability
InducedAccess
CapabilityProfile
NativePolicyObject
AccessDescriptor
ExposureModeReference
RestrictionPrecedence

Some of these should be imported or profiled from CARING rather than owned directly.

7.2 Organization Model Should Add or Strengthen

The Organization seed should strengthen:

ExternalOrganizationRelation
Vendor
Customer
Consultant
ServiceProvider
Distributor
Community
Authority
LifecycleResponsibilityRole

However, the CARING canonical roles should remain in CARING unless they prove broadly useful beyond access governance.

7.3 Governance Model Should Add or Strengthen

The Governance seed should strengthen:

ExceptionWorkflow
ExposureEventGovernance
PostEventReview
AuthoritySource
LifecycleAccessReview
AccessGovernanceControl

7.4 Security Model Should Add or Strengthen

The Security seed should strengthen:

InducedAccessFinding
PrivilegeEscalationFinding
SecretExposureFinding
TenantBoundaryFinding
EffectiveAccessRisk

7.5 Data Model Should Add or Strengthen

The Data seed should strengthen:

ExposureModeMapping
SecretMaterial
CrossTenantAggregate
MaskedData
SyntheticData
PseudonymousData
ExportableData

7.6 DevSecOps Model Should Add or Strengthen

The DevSecOps seed should strengthen:

PipelineBoundAccess
CICDIdentity
AgenticBuildAccess
WorkloadCreationCapability
DeploymentCapabilityProfile

7.7 Network Model Should Add or Strengthen

The Network seed should strengthen:

NamespaceAsScope
NamespaceNotTenantBoundary
ClusterScope
TenantBoundaryNetworkEvidence

7.8 Observability Model Should Add or Strengthen

The Observability seed should strengthen:

AccessEvent
ExposureEventEvidence
AuditTrail
PostAccessReviewEvidence
SessionRecordingReference

---

8. Cross-Standard Import Matrix

Legend:

O = owns concept
I = imports concept
R = references concept
P = profile / specialization

Concept / Mechanism	Core	InfoSpace	Org	Gov	Task	Tag	Access	Sec	Data	DevSecOps	Net	Obs	CARING
Concept ownership	O	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I
Mapping	O	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I
Assimilation	O	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I
Actor	R	R	O	R	I	R	I	R	R	R	R	R	I
Subject	R	R	I	R	R	R	O	R	R	R	R	R	I/P
Role	R	R	O	R	R	R	I	R	R	R	R	R	P
AccessRole	R	R	R	R	R	R	O	R	R	R	R	R	I
CARINGCanonicalRole	R	R	I	R	R	R	I	R	R	R	R	R	O
Policy	R	R	R	O	I	R	I	I	I	I	I	I	I
Permission	R	R	R	R	R	R	O	R	R	R	R	R	I
Capability	R	R	R	R	R	R	O	R	R	R	R	R	P/O
ExposureMode	R	R	R	I	R	R	I	I	I	R	R	I	O
ExposureEvent	R	R	R	I	I	R	I	I	I	I	I	I	O
DeclaredAccess	R	R	R	R	R	R	O/P	I	R	R	R	R	P/O
EffectiveAccess	R	R	R	R	R	R	O/P	I	R	R	R	R	P/O
DerivedCapability	R	R	R	R	R	R	P	I	R	I	R	R	O
InducedAccess	R	R	R	R	R	R	P	I	R	I	R	R	O
Tenant	R	R	I	I	R	R	I	R	I	R	I	R	P
Namespace	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	O	R	I
AuditTrail	R	R	R	I	R	R	I	I	R	R	R	O/P	I

---

9. Kernel Boundary Tensions

9.1 Role vs AccessRole vs CARINGCanonicalRole

This is the most important boundary tension.

Recommended distinction:

Organization Role
  A pattern of responsibility, authority, participation, or behavior.

AccessRole
  A permission-bearing construct in an authorization model.

CARINGCanonicalRole
  A lifecycle responsibility posture used for access-governance analysis.

Rule:

Do not collapse these three.

9.2 Subject vs Actor vs Principal

Recommended distinction:

Actor
  An entity capable of action in organization or system context.

Subject
  The access-control view of an entity requesting or holding access.

Principal
  Identity-bearing subject recognized by an access-control system.

9.3 Plane vs Domain vs Layer

CARING uses Plane as an access surface: Build, Runtime, Execution, Data, Identity, Policy, Secret, Audit, etc.

InfoTechCanon already uses domains such as Data, Network, DevSecOps, Observability.

Recommendation:

CARING Plane remains a CARING-owned access-governance dimension.
It may map to InfoTechCanon domains but should not replace them.

9.4 Exposure Mode vs Data Classification vs Security Exposure

Recommended distinction:

ExposureMode
  How much information becomes visible, usable, or extractable in an access context.

DataClassification
  Classification of data based on sensitivity, policy, or business meaning.

Security Exposure
  A security-relevant condition of reachability, discoverability, or access risk.

9.5 Scope vs ResourceScope vs Landscape Scope

Recommended distinction:

CARING Scope
  Access-governance boundary.

Access ResourceScope
  Authorization evaluation boundary.

Landscape Scope
  System/resource containment or operational boundary.

These may map, but should not be assumed identical.

9.6 Tenant vs Namespace

CARING’s warning that a namespace is not automatically a tenant boundary should be adopted as a kernel-wide rule.

Recommended rule:

Namespace MAY support tenant isolation but MUST NOT be treated as a tenant boundary unless effective access, network, identity, secret, storage, policy, and controller behavior support that interpretation.

---

10. Shared Mechanisms to Extract into Core

These sections currently appear repeatedly in seed standards and should be centralized in Core:

Mapping Model
Assimilation Hooks
Profile Format
Validation Rule Format
Conformance Levels
Repository Placement
Agent Brief Requirements
Canon Interface Card Usage
Artifact Statuses
Concept Statuses
Normative Language
Generated View Rules
Provenance Requirements

Domain standards should keep only domain-specific specializations.

Example after refactor:

Instead of every standard defining mapping types,
Core defines mapping types.
A domain standard lists its mapping targets and domain-specific mapping examples.

---

11. First Kernel Refactoring Checklist

11.1 Core Refactor

• Move generic mapping type list to Core.
• Move assimilation stage model to Core.
• Move standard document profile to Core.
• Move generic conformance levels to Core.
• Move Canon Interface Card model to Core.
• Move agent brief model to Core.
• Move generic lifecycle statuses to Core.
• Create YAML schemas for core artifact types.

11.2 Domain Standards Refactor

For each standard:

• Declare imports from Core.
• Declare owned concepts.
• Remove duplicated generic mechanism prose.
• Keep domain-specific mapping targets.
• Keep domain-specific profiles.
• Keep domain-specific validation rules.
• Add concept ownership references.
• Add agent-brief.md.
• Add concepts/ extraction candidates.
• Add mappings/ folder.
• Add profiles/ folder.

11.3 CARING Refactor

• Create InfoTechCanonCaringAccessGovernanceStandard.md.
• Add namespace itc-caring.
• Create CARING concept ownership table.
• Map CARING dimensions to InfoTechCanon standards.
• Convert CARING examples into profiles or example artifacts.
• Add CARING benchmark corpus.
• Add CARING analysis output schema.
• Add CARING access descriptor schema.
• Add CARING conformance tests.

---

12. Recommended Repository Layout

info-tech-canon/
  README.md
  INTENT.md
  SCOPE.md
  canon.yaml

  core/
    InfoTechCanonCore.md
    agent-brief.md
    schemas/
    validation/

  standards/
    information-space/
    landscape/
    organization/
    governance/
    task/
    tagging/
    access-control/
    caring/
    security/
    data/
    devsecops/
    network/
    observability/

  patterns/
    core/
    integration/
    access-governance/
    agentic/
    production-readiness/

  profiles/
    small-saas/
    kubernetes/
    github/
    gitlab/
    netbox/
    opentelemetry/
    caring/

  mappings/
    external/
      archimate/
      csdm/
      skos/
      prov-o/
      dcat/
      nist-csf/
      rbac/
      abac/
      kubernetes/
      github/
      netbox/
      opentelemetry/
      slsa/
      caring/

  assimilation/
    inbox/
    active/
    completed/

  views/
    by-standard.md
    by-concept.md
    by-pattern.md
    by-profile.md
    by-mapping-target.md
    by-status.md
    dependency-graph.md
    kernel-map.md

  agent/
    briefs/
    retrieval-index.md
    common-mistakes.md

  examples/
    small-saas/
    kubernetes/
    agentic-workflow/
    caring-analysis/

---

13. First Implementation Profiles

13.1 Small SaaS Kernel Profile

Purpose:

Minimal profile for a small SaaS platform moving toward production readiness.

Included standards:

Core
Information Space
Landscape
Organization
Governance
Task
Tagging
Access Control
CARING
Security
Data
DevSecOps
Network
Observability

Primary use cases:

service catalog
repository inventory
runtime inventory
basic governance
task tracking
access governance
security findings
data classification
delivery traceability
observability evidence

13.2 Kubernetes Production Readiness Profile

Purpose:

Canonical profile for modeling Kubernetes-based production readiness.

Included standards:

Landscape
Organization
Governance
Access Control
CARING
Security
Data
DevSecOps
Network
Observability

Critical CARING test cases:

namespace not automatically tenant
workload creation induces service-account access
cluster-admin is compound maximum-authority profile
secret access is separate plane/exposure
CI/CD deployer is service/automation subject

13.3 Agentic Operations Profile

Purpose:

Canonical profile for humans and agents collaborating in operational environments.

Included standards:

Organization
Task
Access Control
CARING
Security
DevSecOps
Observability
Governance

Critical CARING test cases:

agent capability ceiling
delegated vs induced access
agent output attribution
human supervision reference
tool access boundary
post-action review

13.4 Markdown Infospace Profile

Purpose:

Canonical profile for the InfoTechCanon repository and related markdown-based infospaces.

Included standards:

Core
Information Space
Tagging
Governance
Task
DevSecOps
Observability

---

14. First Formal Assimilation Candidates

The first formal assimilation candidates should be chosen to test different kernel mechanics.

14.1 CARING Assimilation

Reason:

Tests orthogonality, cross-standard import boundaries, specialized standard placement,
access governance, agent access, induced access, and benchmark-driven evolution.

Outputs:

CARING concept extraction
CARING-to-InfoTechCanon mapping
CARING access descriptor schema
CARING profile placement
CARING benchmark corpus
Access Control refactor proposals
Governance refactor proposals
Security refactor proposals

14.2 ServiceNow CSDM Assimilation

Reason:

Tests Landscape, service, operational ownership, CMDB mapping, and external product model mapping.

14.3 Kubernetes Assimilation

Reason:

Tests Landscape, Access Control, CARING, Security, DevSecOps, Network, Observability.

14.4 OpenTelemetry Assimilation

Reason:

Tests Observability, Information Space retrieval, resource identity, and evidence mapping.

14.5 DCAT / PROV-O Assimilation

Reason:

Tests Data, Information Space, provenance, catalog, and retrieval compatibility.

---

15. CARING as First Benchmark Corpus

CARING explicitly proposes that standards evolve through concrete analysis challenges. This aligns strongly with InfoTechCanon assimilation.

Recommended CARING benchmark folder:

standards/caring/benchmarks/
  lotus-domino-acl/
  kubernetes-rbac/
  github-repository-access/
  aws-iam/
  keycloak/
  linux-sudo/
  cicd-platform-permissions/
  agentic-workflow-permissions/

Each benchmark should contain:

native-model-summary.md
native-concepts.yaml
caring-mapping.yaml
access-descriptors.yaml
declared-access-map.md
effective-access-map.md
derived-capabilities.md
induced-access-findings.md
restrictions.md
exposure-events.md
redesign-recommendations.md
open-questions.md

---

16. Kernel Validation Rules

16.1 General

VAL-KERNEL-001: Every standard must declare owned concepts.

VAL-KERNEL-002: Every cross-standard concept use should be either owned, imported, referenced, or mapped.

VAL-KERNEL-003: Every profile must name the standards it implements.

VAL-KERNEL-004: Every mapping must declare target body, target concept, mapping type, scope, confidence, and rationale.

VAL-KERNEL-005: Every standard should have an agent brief.

VAL-KERNEL-006: Every domain standard should import Core.

VAL-KERNEL-007: Generated views must be marked as generated.

VAL-KERNEL-008: Concepts with multiple apparent owners must create a boundary review item.

16.2 CARING-Specific

VAL-KERNEL-CARING-001: CARINGCanonicalRole must not be treated as Organization Role or AccessRole without mapping.

VAL-KERNEL-CARING-002: CARING Plane must not be treated as identical to InfoTechCanon domain.

VAL-KERNEL-CARING-003: CARING Scope must map to ResourceScope, Landscape scope, Data scope, or Governance scope explicitly.

VAL-KERNEL-CARING-004: CARING ExposureMode must map to Data, Security, Access Control, or Governance semantics where relevant.

VAL-KERNEL-CARING-005: CARING DerivedCapability and InducedAccess findings must map to Security and Access Control concepts.

VAL-KERNEL-CARING-006: CARING ExposureEvents must map to Governance exception/review and Security/Observability evidence where relevant.

VAL-KERNEL-CARING-007: CARING tenant-boundary claims must be checked against Access Control, Network, Security, Data, and Landscape models.

VAL-KERNEL-CARING-008: CARING native role mappings must not assume that native role names mean canonical roles.

---

17. Known Open Questions

17.1 Core

Should Core own Relationship as runtime graph edge, or only RelationshipDefinition?
Should generic Evidence remain in Governance or move to Core?
Should ProvenanceRecord stay in Core while Evidence stays in Governance?
Should CanonInterfaceCard be Core or Information Space?

Recommendation:

Core owns ProvenanceRecord and CanonInterfaceCard.
Governance owns Evidence as support for claims, controls, decisions, and assurance.
Information Space owns SourceReference and Citation as knowledge artifacts.

17.2 Access / CARING

Should DerivedCapability be owned by CARING or Access Control?
Should ExposureMode be CARING-owned or Data/Security-owned?
Should OrganizationRelation be CARING-owned or Organization-owned?
Should Plane be CARING-owned or Core-owned?

Recommendation:

CARING owns them as access-governance dimensions.
Other standards map/import as needed.

17.3 Architecture Gap

A future InfoTechCanonArchitectureModel is likely needed.

It should own:

ArchitectureView
ArchitectureDecision
ArchitectureConcern
Viewpoint
Component
Connector
ArchitecturePattern
SystemBoundary
RuntimeView
DeploymentView

But some of these are already partially represented in Landscape and Governance. This should wait until after the kernel map is stable.

17.4 Pattern Language Gap

A future InfoTechCanonPatternLanguage is needed.

It should own the structure and evolution of pattern languages beyond the generic Pattern artifact in Core.

---

18. Next Recommended Actions

18.1 Immediate

1. Accept this Kernel Map as the first integration artifact.
2. Create the `standards/caring/` folder.
3. Convert uploaded CARING into `InfoTechCanonCaringAccessGovernanceStandard.md`.
4. Add `itc-caring` namespace.
5. Create `caring-mapping-to-kernel.md`.
6. Create `kernel-concept-ownership.yaml`.

18.2 Refactor Pass

1. Refactor InfoTechCanonLandscapeModel to import Core.
2. Refactor InfoTechCanonAccessControlModel to import CARING concepts where appropriate.
3. Refactor InfoTechCanonGovernanceModel to include exposure-event governance hooks.
4. Refactor InfoTechCanonSecurityModel to include induced-access findings.
5. Refactor InfoTechCanonDataModel to include exposure-mode mappings.

18.3 First Implementation

1. Create Small SaaS Kernel Profile.
2. Create Kubernetes Production Readiness Profile.
3. Create Agentic Operations Profile.
4. Use CARING to analyze Kubernetes RBAC as first benchmark.

---

19. Summary

The first-generation InfoTechCanon kernel is now broad enough to support consolidation.

The current standards cover:

canon machinery
knowledge space
landscape
organization
governance
work
tagging
access control
security
data
delivery
network
observability

The uploaded CARING standard fits best as a specialized access-governance standard:

InfoTechCanonCaringAccessGovernanceStandard

It should not be flattened into Access Control, because its orthogonal descriptor model crosses Organization, Governance, Access Control, Security, Data, DevSecOps, Network, Observability, Task, and Tagging.

CARING is especially valuable because it provides:

orthogonal access dimensions
canonical lifecycle roles
declared vs effective access distinction
derived capability analysis
induced access analysis
tenant-boundary analysis
exposure modes
exposure events
analysis and redesign procedures
benchmark-driven evolution

This makes CARING an excellent first formal assimilation and benchmark corpus for testing whether InfoTechCanon can integrate a rich, user-originated standard without losing orthogonality.