← Back to catalogue
Published

Function / Capability

vr.wm-act-001 · wm-act-001-function-capability

Describe a function and the context-qualified capability claims about bearers that may realize it, with evidence, capacity and explicit limits.

World Models Activities and processes ACT.CAP
Bundle → Layer → Finding → QuestionsClassifiersWhat it isWhy it existsDistinguishing featuresWhat robots and AI may and may not doMoral aspectsOwnersLinks to other meta-modelsIdentity and identifiersDirect propertiesRecognitionCapabilities and actionsHazards and failure modesStandards and interfacesContext of useSources

Bundle → Layer → Finding → Questions Filled

6 bundles · 12 layers · 12 findings · 48 questions

Definition and binding Keep the function description separate from the capabilities and schemes that can realize it.

Dossier identity

A stable dossier has one function scope and separately identified subordinate records.

Dossier identity

Proposed local context: A stable dossier has one function scope and separately identified subordinate records.

  1. Which authoritative identifier and revision identify this dossier and its function description? identity
  2. What intended behavior or result makes this a function description rather than an occurrence? definition
  3. Which bearer classes and domain profile does this function scope permit? classification
  4. When does a changed function meaning require a successor dossier instead of a compatible revision? lifecycle

Capability and skill binding

Link capability specifications to the function; skill and scale masters remain external.

Capability and skill binding

Proposed local context: Link capability specifications to the function; skill and scale masters remain external.

  1. Which capability specification is claimed to realize this function, and is the link necessary, sufficient or only proposed? relationship
  2. Which scheme concept, version and language are referenced for an applicable human skill? interoperability
  3. What information is lost when a broader, narrower or close external concept is used? quality
  4. How is a capability represented when no suitable external skill concept exists? exception
Bearer claims State who claims which bearer can realize the function without merging the bearer and issuer.

Claim attribution

Each attribution has its own identity, author, bearer, capability revision and evidential state.

Claim attribution

Proposed local context: Each attribution has its own identity, author, bearer, capability revision and evidential state.

  1. Which claim identifier links exactly which bearer to which capability revision? identity
  2. Is this claim self-declared, assessed, inferred or imported, and who made it? provenance
  3. Who stewards the local claim and who controls correction of its external evidence? ownership
  4. What supports, contradicts or leaves this capability attribution unknown? evidence

Proficiency and acceptance

Scale-based competence and quantitative system performance are different kinds of claim.

Proficiency and acceptance

Proposed local context: Scale-based competence and quantitative system performance are different kinds of claim.

  1. Which applicable proficiency scale and descriptor qualify the claim, or why is a scale inapplicable? measurement
  2. Under which task conditions and assessment scope can this qualification be relied on? constraint
  3. What acceptance rule distinguishes claimed, supported, disputed and unknown ability? validation
  4. How is a claim handled when scales disagree or have no validated conversion? exception
Operating conditions and capacity Represent where and when a claim applies without scheduling or authorizing work.

Operating envelope

Conditions, resources and configuration bound realization claims.

Operating envelope

Proposed local context: Conditions, resources and configuration bound realization claims.

  1. Which resources, configuration and preconditions are necessary for the claimed capability? requirement
  2. Which location or environmental conditions bound the capability statement? spatial
  3. What observable criterion and uncertainty establish whether the operating envelope holds? measurement
  4. Which separate authorization and hazard policy checks are required before anyone may exercise the capability? security

Capacity and availability

A declared rate or window is evidence-qualified and never silently becomes a booking.

Capacity and availability

Proposed local context: A declared rate or window is evidence-qualified and never silently becomes a booking.

  1. What quantity per period or concurrent volume is declared, with which units and quality conditions? measurement
  2. For which effective window and observation time is this capacity declaration applicable? temporal
  3. Is the capacity measured, estimated, theoretical or committed elsewhere, and what supports that status? quality
  4. Which shared resource or existing commitment prevents capacity statements from being added together? constraint
Realization and effects Describe realization alternatives and potential consequences without executing a plan.

Composition and alternatives

Requirements combine through explicit all-of or any-of relations, not an implicit sum of abilities.

Composition and alternatives

Proposed local context: Requirements combine through explicit all-of or any-of relations, not an implicit sum of abilities.

  1. Which capabilities or resources are jointly required and which are alternatives for this function? composition
  2. What evidence supports a collective bearer claim beyond the abilities of its members? relationship
  3. How are dependency cycles, unresolved references and incompatible alternatives reported? validation
  4. Which method or workflow reference describes realization while retaining its own execution ownership? process

Behavior and effect limits

Input/output descriptions and affordance hints do not prove successful execution or reversibility.

Behavior and effect limits

Proposed local context: Input/output descriptions and affordance hints do not prove successful execution or reversibility.

  1. What inputs and outputs describe the function at the required granularity? definition
  2. Which expected effect or state transition is described and which remains an untested claim? state
  3. Which effects are reversible, compensable, irreversible or unknown under the stated profile? constraint
  4. Which failure modes and missing prerequisites must be disclosed with the affordance? exception
Evidence and validity Preserve evidence origin, contradictory observations and time-qualified acceptance.

Evidence provenance

Link evidence to the exact claim; source attribution is not a claim of truth.

Evidence provenance

Proposed local context: Link evidence to the exact claim; source attribution is not a claim of truth.

  1. Which assessment, credential or observed act supports this specific claim and scope? evidence
  2. How was each evidence item obtained and transformed before use here? provenance
  3. What was checked for authenticity, status and substantive relevance, and what was not checked? validation
  4. Which contrary observations or sampling limitations prevent generalizing the evidence? quality

Claim lifecycle and time

Revision, withdrawal, expiry and knowledge about ability must not collapse into one state.

Claim lifecycle and time

Proposed local context: Revision, withdrawal, expiry and knowledge about ability must not collapse into one state.

  1. What effective interval, issue time and recording time belong to the claim revision? temporal
  2. Which role and evidence authorize suspension, correction, supersession or withdrawal of this local claim? lifecycle
  3. How does credential expiry or unavailable status affect reliance without asserting that actual ability disappeared? state
  4. Which observed change triggers reassessment without automatically fabricating a new result? event
Reliance and stewardship Create bounded comparisons and disclosure views under role-specific authority.

Requirement comparison

Comparison is a reviewable local record; absent evidence is not proof of inability.

Requirement comparison

Proposed local context: Comparison is a reviewable local record; absent evidence is not proof of inability.

  1. Which external requirement and version is compared against the capability claim? requirement
  2. Which criteria are met, unmet, unknown or incomparable, and on what evidence? decision
  3. What approved mapping and unit or scale conversion permits this particular comparison? interoperability
  4. Who reviews a comparison before a consequential assignment or decision in the external system? authority

Disclosure and disposition

Protected bearer claims and evidence need purpose-limited views and record-specific retention.

Disclosure and disposition

Proposed local context: Protected bearer claims and evidence need purpose-limited views and record-specific retention.

  1. Which recipient and purpose may access the function, claim and supporting artifact separately? access
  2. Which minimal view answers the request without exposing unnecessary bearer or assessor data? privacy
  3. Which retention rule and hold determine when local claim payloads and evidence links may be disposed of? retention
  4. How can a bearer dispute an attribution while preserving the issuer record and a traceable correction outcome? ownership

Classifiers Filled

Family
World Models
Category
Activities and processes
Entry kind
aggregate
Navigation path
NAV.ACT.CAP
Domain
ACT.CAP
Industry
Cross-industry
Tags
functioncapabilityact.cap
Also called
K1

What it is Filled

One governed function/capability dossier, identified independently of its revisions, contains one function description and separately identified capability specifications, bearer attributions and capacity statements relevant to that function. Function is the intended behavior or result; capability is the ability claimed to realize it. A dossier can exist without a bearer claim. The aggregate is a local proposed boundary, not an external standard class.

In scope

  • Stable dossier identity and versioned function input, output, intended effect and limitation descriptions.
  • Capability realization alternatives, bearer-specific claims, evidence links, conditional proficiency and capacity declarations.
  • Local status, comparison records, disclosure projections and revision traceability for these records.

Out of scope

  • Skill and competency scheme definitions, canonical proficiency scales and their mapping governance belong to WM-PER-009 and scheme authorities.
  • Person, organization, asset and software master data; assessment execution, credential issuance and revocation systems.
  • Actual acts, workflow execution, scheduling, reservations, task assignment, permission enforcement, hiring decisions and service delivery.
  • Domain-specific operating instructions for hazardous or controlled activities; this model records only policy constraints and qualified authority references.

Why it exists Filled

Describe a function and the context-qualified capability claims about bearers that may realize it, with evidence, capacity and explicit limits.

Distinguishing features Derived, awaiting review

  • Unlike WM-PER-009 Skill / Competency Definition: Reference pinned skill concepts and scale definitions when a human competency profile applies. Do not recreate the legacy skill taxonomy or infer bearer proficiency from an occupation.
  • Unlike WM-ACT-002 Act; WM-ACT-003 Process / Workflow; WM-ACT-009 Method / Procedure: Function is a behavior description, capability is conditional potential, and an act is an occurrence. Link method and performance records without executing or owning them.
  • Unlike WM-ACT-034 Assessment / Evaluation: Assessment outcomes can support a claim; local acceptance records do not conduct an assessment or certify competence.
  • Unlike WM-PER-001 Person; WM-ORG-001 Organization; adopting asset or software master: Bearer identity and configuration are external. Collective capability is not inherited from every member, and membership alone supplies no realization evidence.
  • Unlike WM-ACT-008 Plan / Schedule; WM-ACT-004 Service Definition: Conditional capacity declarations are neither reservations nor promises to deliver a service. Available time and contractual commitments remain externally mastered.
  • Unlike Credential, authority and access systems: Issuer, bearer, local custodian and relying party are distinct roles. A capability claim or accessible endpoint grants no permission to act. Local withdrawal does not revoke an external credential.

Note: Derived from boundary notes against neighbouring models.

What robots and AI may and may not do Derived, awaiting review

Must not

  • Referenced credential, person, organization, assessment and act masters retain their own lifecycle; local deletion cannot revoke or erase them.
  • Deny bearer-level claims and evidence access unless a role and purpose grant applies.

Only with a human decision

  • Use human review under the adopting policy for consequential decisions and contested evidence; preserve explanation and correction routes.
  • Referenced credential, person, organization, assessment and act masters retain their own lifecycle; local deletion cannot revoke or erase them.

May

  • Register dossier revision: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Create the local function/capability description with subordinate IDs and explicit gaps.
  • Record capability attribution: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Record a sourced assertion with issuer and bearer separated.
  • Link and qualify evidence: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Attach evidence references and existing verification outcomes to a scoped claim.
  • Record capacity declaration: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Store a conditional rate or availability statement with measurement basis.
  • Prepare bounded comparison: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Record a criterion-level comparison for review using authorized pinned evidence.
  • Record local claim transition: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Apply a permitted revision or local withdrawal without changing the external issuer record.

Note: Derived from functions, policies, CRUD and access rules; prohibitions were not authored for agents as such.

Moral aspects Derived, awaiting review

  • Qualified review of employment, licensing, privacy, accessibility, safety and sector-specific reliance policy in each adopting jurisdiction.
  • Withdrawal of a public profile does not revoke issuer evidence; retention history does not authorize perpetual personal data storage.

Note: Sentences mentioning harm, privacy, consent or similar, collected from the specification.

Owners Filled

Steward

Identify the accountable dossier steward, bearer reference authorities and claim issuers by role and master IDs.

Roles

Dossier steward
Own the local function boundary, revision policy and reference bindings.
Claim issuer
Assert or correct only claims within evidenced authority; distinguish self-declaration from assessment.
Bearer or representative
Provide authorized statements, request restricted views and dispute errors without silently rewriting issuer evidence.
Evidence reviewer
Record scope, provenance, limitations and contradictory evidence; separate authenticity from substantive reliance.
Relying reviewer
Use authorized views, document comparison purpose and route consequential decisions to their owner.
Access and retention administrator
Enforce scoped access and authorized disposition through external services.

Links to other meta-models Filled

references

  • WM-PER-009 - Proposed binding: Skill and competency concept, scale and mapping definitions remain with their scheme master; optional human profile binding.
  • WM-PER-001 - Proposed binding: Bearer identity for person attributions; no copied person lifecycle or protected-trait inference.
  • WM-ORG-001 - Proposed binding: Organization bearer and issuer references with independent collective-capability evidence.
  • WM-ACT-002 - Proposed binding: Observed act evidence; own execution, event identity and effects remain external.
  • WM-ACT-003 - Proposed binding: Workflow realization description only; no process orchestration.
  • WM-ACT-009 - Proposed binding: Applicable method and prerequisites only; no procedure execution.
  • WM-ACT-034 - Proposed binding: Assessment result and method evidence, without owning assessment lifecycle.
  • WM-ACT-008 - Proposed binding: External calendar and commitment evidence; declarations are not reservations.
  • WM-ACT-004 - Proposed binding: Service definition requiring or realizing the function; no service commitment inferred.

aligned

  • https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-vocab-ssn-20171019/ - Proposed binding: Conditional system capability pattern for applicable machine profiles only; no universal equivalence.
  • https://www.w3.org/TR/2023/REC-wot-thing-description11-20231205/ - Proposed binding: Action affordance concept and effect hints where an interface binding exists; no execution permission.
  • https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/REC-vc-data-model-2.0-20250515/ - Proposed binding: Optional credential evidence carrier; proof/status validation is external and does not prove capability.

neighbor

  • WM-PER-009 Skill / Competency Definition - Reference pinned skill concepts and scale definitions when a human competency profile applies. Do not recreate the legacy skill taxonomy or infer bearer proficiency from an occupation.
  • WM-ACT-002 Act; WM-ACT-003 Process / Workflow; WM-ACT-009 Method / Procedure - Function is a behavior description, capability is conditional potential, and an act is an occurrence. Link method and performance records without executing or owning them.
  • WM-ACT-034 Assessment / Evaluation - Assessment outcomes can support a claim; local acceptance records do not conduct an assessment or certify competence.
  • WM-PER-001 Person; WM-ORG-001 Organization; adopting asset or software master - Bearer identity and configuration are external. Collective capability is not inherited from every member, and membership alone supplies no realization evidence.
  • WM-ACT-008 Plan / Schedule; WM-ACT-004 Service Definition - Conditional capacity declarations are neither reservations nor promises to deliver a service. Available time and contractual commitments remain externally mastered.
  • Credential, authority and access systems - Issuer, bearer, local custodian and relying party are distinct roles. A capability claim or accessible endpoint grants no permission to act. Local withdrawal does not revoke an external credential.

What else AI and robots need to interact with it Incomplete

Identity and identifiers required Filled

  • Authoritative master-system identifier
  • Governed global identifier or IRI
  • Assigned UUID or ULID in the adopting Dimension

Direct properties not applicable Not applicable

Not applicable

Institutional or informational subject: no invented physical properties.

Recognition optional Missing, in the backlog

Not described yet. This gap is in the card backlog.

Capabilities and actions required Filled

  • Register dossier revision: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Create the local function/capability description with subordinate IDs and explicit gaps.
  • Record capability attribution: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Record a sourced assertion with issuer and bearer separated.
  • Link and qualify evidence: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Attach evidence references and existing verification outcomes to a scoped claim.
  • Record capacity declaration: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Store a conditional rate or availability statement with measurement basis.
  • Prepare bounded comparison: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Record a criterion-level comparison for review using authorized pinned evidence.
  • Record local claim transition: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Apply a permitted revision or local withdrawal without changing the external issuer record.

Hazards and failure modes optional Missing, in the backlog

Not described yet. This gap is in the card backlog.

Standards and interfaces required Derived, awaiting review

  • PROV-O: The PROV Ontology
  • RFC 3339: Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps

Context of use required Filled

  • ESCO and O*NET are illustrative European and United States occupational resources; neither supplies universal function definitions or bearer certifications.
  • SSN and WoT apply to system/interface profiles. Applying their distinctions to human and organizational claims is a local abstraction, not normative equivalence.

Sources Filled

  1. ESCO skills pillar - European Commission
  2. O*NET Content Model - U.S. Department of Labor
  3. Semantic Sensor Network Ontology - World Wide Web Consortium
  4. SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference - World Wide Web Consortium
  5. PROV-O: The PROV Ontology - World Wide Web Consortium
  6. Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0 - World Wide Web Consortium
  7. Web of Things Thing Description 1.1 - World Wide Web Consortium
  8. RFC 3339: Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps - Internet Engineering Task Force

Open questions

  • Complete outside-sandbox transport checks and source version, licensing and substantive applicability review without treating HTTP 200 as a substantive verification result.
  • Build domain profiles and adversarial fixtures for bearer-free dossiers, contested issuer claims, stale evidence, incomparable scales, shared-resource capacity and collective ability.
  • Implement and validate nested schemas and pinned mappings, including separate provenance authorship and capability-bearer relations.
  • Restore independent external review before canonical or publishable-draft promotion.
  • Nested instance schemas, concrete adapter bindings, executable comparison rules and domain acceptance fixtures.
  • Empirical models of skill decay, calibrated proficiency conversion, team sufficiency and shared-resource capacity aggregation.
  • Qualified review of employment, licensing, privacy, accessibility, safety and sector-specific reliance policy in each adopting jurisdiction.
  • Verification of current source versions, licensing and complete domain applicability; restoration of independent review.

Machine files

Card as JSON Specification AGENTS.md Source Card backlog vercy.card/1

Provenance

world-models research · reviewable-draft

Built from: models/wm-act-001-function-capability/spec.yaml