domain-alignentities

name	domain-alignentities
description	Align extracted domain concepts with existing organizational domain models and standards. Maps new concepts to existing entities, identifies conflicts and inconsistencies in terminology, suggests alignments and standardizations, and produces mapping documentation for consistent domain modeling across projects.
license	MIT

Domain Align Entities

Align extracted domain concepts with existing organizational domain models and standards to ensure consistency and reuse across projects.

Intent

Systematically compare new domain concepts extracted from requirements against existing organizational domain models, vocabularies, and standards. Identifies mappings, conflicts, and alignment opportunities to maintain consistency across projects while supporting domain model evolution.

Inputs

• Primary: projects/[project-name]/artifacts/Analysis/domain-concepts.json (from domain-extractconcepts skill)
• References: Organizational domain models (orgModel/**/*domain-model.md)
• References: Organizational vocabularies (orgModel/**/*vocabulary.md)
• References: Organizational class diagrams (orgModel/**/*domain-model.md containing Mermaid class diagrams)
• Format: Structured domain concepts with entities, terminology, relationships, operations, and metadata

Outputs

Files Generated:

• projects/[project-name]/artifacts/Analysis/domain-alignment.json - Structured alignment data for programmatic use
• projects/[project-name]/artifacts/Analysis/domain-alignment.md - Human-readable alignment report and recommendations

JSON Structure (domain-alignment.json)

{
  "project_id": "string",
  "alignment_metadata": {
    "generated_at": "ISO8601",
    "source_concepts_file": "domain-concepts.json",
    "reference_models": ["orgModel/01-skill-dev/domain-model.md"],
    "reference_vocabularies": ["orgModel/01-skill-dev/vocabulary.md"],
    "total_alignments": "number",
    "conflict_count": "number",
    "alignment_confidence": "0.0-1.0"
  },
  "entity_alignments": [
    {
      "extracted_entity": {
        "id": "ENT-001",
        "name": "User"
           
          
         
      
       
         
         
           
           
           
        
         
         
         
         
      
    
  
   
    
       
         
         
         
      
       
         
         
           
           
           
        
         
         
         
         
      
    
  
   
    
       
         
         
         
         
      
       
         
         
          
             
             
             
             
          
        
         
         
      
    
  
   
    
       
       
       
        
       
       
        
           
           
           
        
        
           
           
           
        
      
    
  
   
    
       
         
         
          
         
         
      
       
         
         
           
            
           
           
        
         
         
         
         
      
    
  
   
    
       
       
       
       
       
       
    
  

Markdown Structure (domain-alignment.md)

# Domain Alignment Report

**Project**: [project_id]  
**Generated**: [timestamp]  
**Source Concepts**: domain-concepts.json ([count] entities, [count] concepts)  
**Reference Models**: [list of organizational models]  
**Alignment Confidence**: [score]/1.0

## Executive Summary

**Total Alignments**: [count]  
**Direct Matches**: [count] | **Partial Matches**: [count] | **New Entities**: [count]  
**Conflicts Detected**: [count] | **Recommendations**: [count]

## Entity Alignments

### ✅ Direct Matches
Extracted entities that directly align with existing organizational entities.

#### User → Team Member *(ENT-001)*
**Confidence**: 0.95  
**Source Model**: orgModel/01-skill-dev/domain-model.md  
**Rationale**: Both represent individuals using system functionality  
**Action**: ✅ Map to existing organizational entity

### ⚠️ Partial Matches  
Extracted entities with similar but not identical organizational counterparts.

#### ProjectOwner → Team Lead *(ENT-002)*
**Confidence**: 0.75  
**Source Model**: orgModel/01-skill-dev/domain-model.md  
**Differences**: ProjectOwner broader scope, Team Lead specific to team management  
**Action**: 🔄 Consider creating specialization relationship

### 🆕 New Entities
Extracted entities with no organizational counterparts - potential model extensions.

#### SkillFramework *(ENT-003)*
**Domain Area**: Learning Management  
**Rationale**: Project-specific concept not in organizational model  
**Action**: ➕ Propose addition to organizational model

## Operation Alignments

### ✅ Method Matches
Extracted operations that align with existing organizational entity methods.

#### User.authenticate() → Team Member.validateCredentials() *(OP-001)*
**Confidence**: 0.85  
**Source Entity**: Team Member (orgModel/01-skill-dev/domain-model.md)  
**Parameter Mapping**: [username, password] → [credentials]  
**Action**: ✅ Align with organizational operation pattern

### 🆕 New Operations
Extracted operations with no organizational counterparts.

#### User.updateProfile() *(OP-002)*
: User  
: [profile_data]  
: void  
: 🆕 Propose as new capability




| Extracted Term | Organization Term | Confidence | Action |
|----------------|-------------------|------------|---------|
| Assessment | Skills Assessment | 0.90 | Adopt standard term |


| Term | Extracted Definition | Org Definition | Resolution |
|------|---------------------|----------------|------------|
| Validation | Process verification | Skill demonstration requirement | Clarify context distinction |


Terms not in organizational vocabulary that could be valuable additions.




 : User ↔ Role similar to Team Member ↔ Skill Profile
 : Assessment validates Skills (organizational model)


 : SkillFramework contains multiple Skills
 : Assessment tracks learning progression






: Project uses "User" while organization uses "Team Member"  
: Terminology inconsistency across projects  
:
 ✅ : Rename to "Team Member" for consistency
 Define "User" as specialization of "Team Member"




: Project Assessment broader than organizational Skills Assessment  
: Potential confusion in assessment processes  
: Define Assessment as supertype of Skills Assessment





  (Impact: High)
 Rename "User" → "Team Member"
 Update all references and relationships

  (Impact: Medium)
 Use "Skills Assessment" instead of generic "Assessment"
 Maintain traceability in concept definitions



 
 Add "SkillFramework" entity to organizational model
 Define relationship patterns for framework hierarchies

 
 Add project-specific terms to organizational vocabulary
 Document context-specific usage patterns

---
: Aligned concepts from domain-concepts.json against [org models]  
: Review recommendations with domain stakeholders  
: [timestamp]

Core Alignment Process

1. Entity Mapping

Pattern Matching:

• Direct name matches: Identical or near-identical entity names
• Semantic similarity: Entities with similar descriptions and attributes
• Functional equivalence: Entities serving similar roles in domain
• Structural patterns: Entities with comparable attribute sets

Conflict Detection:

• Naming conflicts: Same name, different meanings
• Definition conflicts: Similar entities, incompatible definitions
• Attribute mismatches: Same entity, different attribute sets
• Relationship inconsistencies: Conflicting relationship patterns

2. Terminology Standardization

Vocabulary Alignment:

• Exact matches: Terms with identical definitions
• Synonym detection: Different terms, same meaning
• Broader/narrower relationships: Hierarchical term relationships
• Context conflicts: Same term, different contexts

Standardization Rules:

• Prefer organizational terms over project-specific variants
• Maintain precision - don't force inappropriate generalizations
• Document distinctions when terms serve different purposes
• Suggest vocabulary extensions for valuable new concepts

3. Relationship Pattern Analysis

Pattern Recognition:

• Ownership patterns: Entity A "has" Entity B
• Dependency patterns: Entity A "requires" Entity B
• Hierarchy patterns: Entity A "contains" Entity B
• Process patterns: Entity A "triggers" Entity B

Consistency Checking:

• Verify similar relationships use consistent naming
• Check cardinality consistency across similar patterns
• Validate relationship semantics against organizational models

4. Incremental Model Evolution

Model Extension Strategy:

• Assess new concept value for organizational reuse
• Propose model additions for broadly applicable concepts
• Document specializations for project-specific needs
• Maintain backward compatibility with existing models

Change Management:

• Track proposed changes to organizational models
• Document impact assessment for model modifications
• Coordinate with domain stakeholders for approval process
• Version control integration for model evolution tracking

Quality Assurance

Alignment Validation

• Semantic consistency: Aligned entities maintain coherent meaning
• Relationship integrity: Mapped relationships preserve logical structure
• Terminology accuracy: Aligned terms maintain definitional precision
• Completeness checking: All extracted concepts processed for alignment

Confidence Scoring

• High (0.8-1.0): Clear semantic match with strong evidence
• Medium (0.5-0.79): Reasonable match with some uncertainty
• Low (0.2-0.49): Weak match requiring human review

For detailed alignment patterns and conflict resolution strategies, see alignment-patterns.md.