Use this issue to track InQL RFC 028, proposed in PR #60 at docs/rfcs/028_semantic_identity_targets.md.
Area
- Specification (RFCs)
- Documentation
Summary
RFC 028 defines the semantic identity and target model required by InQL's relational evidence program. It establishes stable, typed targets for plans, Prism nodes, plan ingress requests, client sessions, relation outputs, fields, scalar expressions, aggregate measures, window expressions, generator outputs, read roots, quality assertions, policy decisions, adapter requirements, coverage records, and execution attempts.
Motivation
Lineage, metadata attachments, quality observations, policy decisions, execution observations, adapter coverage, and plan diffs all need precise anchors. If evidence attaches only to display names or backend plan fragments, it becomes fragile under aliases, rewrites, projections, and execution adapter differences.
Proposal sketch
Define semantic target categories and identity scope rules for plan-local, artifact-stable, and execution-local evidence. Authored Prism targets, rewritten Prism targets, and execution observations must remain distinct. Backend and client protocol identifiers may be attached as metadata, but they must not replace InQL semantic targets.
Alternatives considered
The draft rejects display names as identities, backend plan node identifiers as semantic identities, and global durable IDs as a first requirement.
Impact / compatibility
Existing plans without semantic targets remain valid for execution. Tools that require relational evidence should report missing semantic identity as unsupported evidence rather than inferring identity from names alone.
Implementation notes (optional)
Review PR #60 for the draft. This RFC is foundational for the later lineage, metadata, quality, coverage, and plan-diff RFCs.
Checklist
Use this issue to track InQL RFC 028, proposed in PR #60 at
docs/rfcs/028_semantic_identity_targets.md.Area
Summary
RFC 028 defines the semantic identity and target model required by InQL's relational evidence program. It establishes stable, typed targets for plans, Prism nodes, plan ingress requests, client sessions, relation outputs, fields, scalar expressions, aggregate measures, window expressions, generator outputs, read roots, quality assertions, policy decisions, adapter requirements, coverage records, and execution attempts.
Motivation
Lineage, metadata attachments, quality observations, policy decisions, execution observations, adapter coverage, and plan diffs all need precise anchors. If evidence attaches only to display names or backend plan fragments, it becomes fragile under aliases, rewrites, projections, and execution adapter differences.
Proposal sketch
Define semantic target categories and identity scope rules for plan-local, artifact-stable, and execution-local evidence. Authored Prism targets, rewritten Prism targets, and execution observations must remain distinct. Backend and client protocol identifiers may be attached as metadata, but they must not replace InQL semantic targets.
Alternatives considered
The draft rejects display names as identities, backend plan node identifiers as semantic identities, and global durable IDs as a first requirement.
Impact / compatibility
Existing plans without semantic targets remain valid for execution. Tools that require relational evidence should report missing semantic identity as unsupported evidence rather than inferring identity from names alone.
Implementation notes (optional)
Review PR #60 for the draft. This RFC is foundational for the later lineage, metadata, quality, coverage, and plan-diff RFCs.
Checklist