test(vocabulary): establish the public terminology baseline - #536
Draft
aaltshuler wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
test(vocabulary): establish the public terminology baseline#536aaltshuler wants to merge 1 commit into
aaltshuler wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Adds the reviewed vocabulary inventory baseline at
tools/omnigraph-vocabulary-guard/graph-vocabulary-inventory.tsv.This changes no runtime behavior or public contract. It lands separately so the stacked guard must compare against an established merge-base inventory instead of bootstrapping and approving its own initial state.
Stack
mainGovernance
This PR is intentionally Draft. There is no accepted tracking issue or formal RFC authorizing the broader vocabulary work; do not merge the stack until that requirement is resolved.
The internal working RFC remains ignored under
docs/internal/and is not included in either PR.