Model review and decisions

Members review business meaning, evidence, examples and consequences. They are not expected to author ontology syntax, and a generated candidate does not become a standard merely because it appears on the website.

The current review path

1. Evidence: members submit authorised sources, scenarios and domain explanations.
2. Questions: the group makes ambiguity, gaps and competency questions explicit.
3. Candidate: facilitators and tools produce a versioned, reviewable proposal.
4. Review: members challenge definitions, relationships, constraints, examples and omissions.
5. Revision: accepted corrections and new evidence inform a visible next candidate.

ADR-0065 describes a fuller evidence-to-model cycle, but ADR-0065 remains proposed. Treat it as the documented direction and keep each workspace's actual candidate and review status visible.

What to check

• Does the definition match how practitioners use the term in this context?
• Are two different things being merged, or one thing being duplicated?
• Do the relationships, roles and direction make business sense?
• Are required distinctions, exceptions, lifecycle states or time conditions missing?
• Does a controlled value set use the right terms and scope?
• Can the candidate answer the group's competency questions and represent real examples?
• Does it cross another context boundary, and if so, is the ownership and mapping explicit?
• Does the published change view explain what moved and why?

Cross-boundary comparisons follow the Category 8 mapping method: tools may suggest a candidate, but affected semantic owners and Interoperability decide whether there is a mapping and which predicate the evidence supports.

Make feedback actionable

When commenting, identify:

• the page, term, relationship, example or version affected;
• the problem and its practical consequence;
• supporting evidence or a counterexample where available;
• the change you think should be considered; and
• whether the issue is local to the group or crosses a boundary.

Use the relevant Teams thread for discussion and the page's website comments for contextual feedback. Neither reaction counts nor a comment alone is a decision record.

Who may decide what