Canonical Semantic Models
architecture note

Semantic Metadata Registry

Architecture, technical specification, and executive proposal for thin-projection analytics ontologies.

A comprehensive publication series detailing the design, architecture, technical specification, and executive proposal for a decoupled Semantic Metadata Registry. Decouples authoring ontologies from runtime projections for prompt generation, query planning, and entity resolution.

4 August 2026Revision 012 min readShreyas Agarwal
Dry Read

Semantic Metadata Registry

Writing One Architecture at Four Altitudes: Vision Paper → Executive Proposal → Architecture Overview → Technical Specification.

The four documents in this collection describe a single piece of software architecture — a shared semantic layer sitting between raw analytical data and every feature that consumes it (dashboards, AI assistants, reporting tools, and future automation).

What makes them worth presenting together isn't the architecture alone; it's that the same design is deliberately written four separate times, once for each of four audiences, each version answering a different question and containing almost none of the same sentences as the others.

Important

"Explain this architecture" is not one task. It is four distinct tasks: Vision Paper, Executive Proposal, Architecture Overview, and Technical Specification. Conflating them into a single document means it serves no audience well.

The Four Altitudes

DocumentQuestion It AnswersPrimary AudienceWhat It Deliberately Omits
00 Vision PaperWhy does this problem exist in the world at all?Architects & Product StrategySpecific company or implementation details.
01 Executive ProposalWhy should we build this now, specifically?Leadership & Budget OwnersSchemas, field names, and cache-key formats.
02 Architecture OverviewWhat is it, and how do the pieces talk to each other?Senior & Systems EngineersExact field-level types and storage formats.
03 Technical SpecificationExactly how does it work, field by field?Implementation EngineersPersuasion — moves straight to precision.

The Core Architectural Pattern

Three fears sit underneath traditional semantic layers:

STEPAuthoring Pain

One giant object tries to serve everyone, resulting in dozens of required fields per column.

STEPContext Overload

Full objects are shipped to every consumer (LLMs, query planners, UI tools), overloading prompt limits.

STEPRigidity & Coupling

Authoring schema == Runtime payload. Any schema change breaks five downstream consumers.

DEC — Decision · ACCEPTEDaccepted

The Core Architectural Fix: Author a rich ontology once in a stable storage format, then compile thin, purpose-built projections (Prompt View, Planner View, Resolver View, Tool Registry) for each consumer instead of shipping raw objects anywhere.