Ontology Governance Workflow
Spec metadata:
- ID:
ontology-governance-workflow - Status:
planning - Hard depends on:
ontology-evolution-core,knowledge-architecture-schema - Registry:
docs/specs/INDEX.md
Related docs:
docs/research/technical/RESEARCH-ONTOLOGY-EVOLUTION.mddocs/specs/INDEX.mddocs/specs/dependencies.yaml
1) Problem
Ontology-impacting changes currently rely on ad-hoc coordination. This is manageable at low volume, but fragile as schema complexity and retrieval coupling increase.
Without a governance workflow:
- migration risk increases,
- cross-spec contracts drift silently,
- rollback and compatibility expectations are unclear.
2) Goals
- Make ontology changes explicit and reviewable.
- Require compatibility, migration, and rollback notes for risky changes.
- Enforce dependency/index consistency in CI.
- Keep workflow lightweight for local-first development.
3) Proposed workflow
Stage 1: Proposal
Every ontology-impacting change starts with:
- linked planning/approved spec ID,
- declared contract impact,
- migration sketch (or explicit no-migration rationale),
- risk level (
low,medium,high).
Stage 2: Review
Required checks before merge:
- dependency graph consistency (
dependencies.yaml), - index registry consistency (
INDEX.md), - invariant compliance (agent scope, constraints surfacing, taxonomy),
- migration idempotency statement.
Stage 3: Approval and rollout
For medium/high risk:
- staged rollout flag and fallback behavior,
- rollback path documented,
- observability hooks/metrics identified.
Stage 4: Post-merge verification
- benchmark regression check for retrieval quality,
- graph health check (orphan rate, hub concentration),
- issue template for fast rollback if regression appears.
4) Deliverables
docs/specs/sprints/ontology-governance-brief.md(implementation brief).- CI guard extension for ontology contract drift.
- PR template fragment for ontology-impacting changes.
- Migration checklist in docs.
5) Integration contracts
Governance Workflow <-> INDEX / dependencies
- New ontology specs must have synchronized entries in both files.
- Hard dependencies must be explicit before implementation starts.
Governance Workflow <-> Invariants
Every ontology proposal must explicitly confirm:
- invariant 1 (agent scoping),
- invariant 3 (canonical entity taxonomy),
- invariant 5 (constraints always surface).
Governance Workflow <-> Build sequence
Ontology governance gates run before moving planning specs to approved. No governance bypass for schema-affecting PRs.
6) Non-goals
- No enterprise-style heavyweight approval board.
- No separate product for ontology reviews.
- No forced process for non-ontology code changes.
7) Validation
- CI fails on spec registry drift.
- CI fails when ontology-impacting PR lacks migration/rollback notes.
- Dry-run migration validation documented for new ontology migrations.
8) Success metrics
- Fewer post-merge ontology regressions.
- Faster incident resolution for ontology-related bugs.
- Reduced spec/index/dependency drift defects over time.
9) Open decisions
- What threshold marks a change as ontology-impacting by policy?
- Which checks are blocking vs advisory in CI?
- Should governance metadata live only in docs or also in machine-readable config?