BACM11 — Reconsider the packaging and namespace conventions

The justification for namespaces is to permit parts of the model to be used independently. The current packaging is close, but crossmaps between value stream and capability are defined in Capability and crossmaps between ValueItem and Outcome are defined in Customer. Customer mixes together Journeys and Value Streams. Consider repackaging to eliminate crossmaps from the core packages and add new packages with just the crossmaps. This would also benefit use of the OWL as a group of ontologies instead of one large one.

Lack of consensus that a change needs to be made

The initial complain was about the number of prefix definitions needed in the OWL ontology. This led to a larger issue of whether the BACM should be split into several specifications that would be interconnected. The benefit would be that a tool could implement say capability and value without incorporating other perspectives not needed for a present use. This contradicts the conformance requirement. There was little appetite to accommodate this large change, but the issue is a valid one so it is deferred.