A.2.6:20.1.2 - UTS Table (F.17) — Cross‑context term mapping
| # | Context / Source | Local label(s) (native) | Closest USM concept | Notes on fit & deltas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 | Architecture context; environment; stakeholder concerns; viewpoints and views | ContextSlice (addressable slice); Scope as view‑specific applicability | 42010 is about views in context; it has no first‑class set‑valued scope char but aligns with “evaluate in a concrete context” → USM uses explicit slice tuples. |
| 2 | OMG Essence | Alpha State; Work Product State; Level of Detail (LoD) | Work scope (guards), Detail (D) (LoD), ESG/RSG | Essence separates status (states) and work evidence; LoD is detail, not scope. USM treats scope as guardable membership over slices; states/LoD map to ESG & D, not to G. |
| 3 | NIST AI RMF | Context of use; validity, reliability, robustness; monitoring | Claim scope (G); R freshness/monitoring | “Context of use” = where a claim/model holds → maps to G. “Validity” is part of R vocabulary; we avoid naming the characteristic “validity” to prevent LA confusion. |
| 4 | ASME V&V 40 / FDA | Context of use; credibility factors; verification/validation | Claim scope (G); R (credibility) | Direct fit for G via “context of use”. Credibility/evidence freshness contribute to R, not to G; USM keeps them separate in guards. |
| 5 | W3C SHACL | Shapes; targets (sh:targetClass, sh:target); constraints | Claim scope (targets define where constraints apply); F≥4 (predicate form) | SHACL “target” ≈ membership predicate on a dataset context; analogue of Claim scope on data slices; constraint language supports F4‑style predicates. |
| 6 | OWL 2 practice | Class extension; domain/range; imports/version IRI | Claim scope as class extension over an ontology context | Class extension is set‑semantics by design; G maps to extension over a versioned ontology (part of ContextSlice). |
| 7 | IETF BCP 14 | MUST/SHALL/SHOULD; requirements language | Guard style (observable predicates) | BCP 14 doesn’t define scope but dictates how guards are worded; USM aligns by requiring observable, deterministic membership checks. |
| 8 | DO‑178C / DO‑333 | Operational conditions; DAL; formal method objectives; TQL | Work scope (operating conditions); F (proof‑grade), R (assurance objectives) | Operational applicability = Work scope; formal method objectives lift F; Tool qualification impacts TA/R, not G. |
| 9 | ISO 26262 | Operational situation & operating modes; ASIL; OSED | Work scope (operating modes/situations) | OSED/operating modes define where capability can be exercised → Work scope. Assurance level (ASIL) relates to R, not G. |
| 10 | IEC 61508 | SIL; demand mode; proof test interval | Work scope (demand vs continuous mode) + R freshness | Mode concepts influence where/how a function can be claimed → Work scope; proof test interval sits in R (freshness/decay). |
| 11 | ACM Artifacts | Available/Evaluated/Reusable; Reproduced/Replicated | R signals; ContextSlice (reproduction environment) | Badges encode evidence availability and warrant level; the declared environment maps to a slice; scope of claim is often implicit → USM makes it explicit. |
| 12 | SRE / Cloud SLO | SLOs; error budgets; regions/tiers; rollout windows | Work scope (regions/tiers) + measures; gammaTime only for a membership-changing rollout interval | SLO measures and error-budget windows stay in their measure or reliance guards. A rollout interval enters Work scope only when crossing its exact start or end changes whether that job slice belongs. |
Summary. Across all Contexts, two stable notions recur: (1) evaluate in a concrete context (→ U.ContextSlice), and (2) declare where something holds or is deliverable (→ set‑valued Scope). “Context of use,” “operating modes,” “targets,” “class extension,” and “OSED” are all Context‑flavored presentations of Claim scope or Work scope. Terms like validity and operation are semantically close but collide with LA and FPF’s Work and Run lexicon; we therefore do not adopt them as characteristic names.