Linked.Archi TIME Framework Ontology
Ontology for representing application portfolio fit assessments and Gartner TIME dispositions (Tolerate, Invest, Migrate, Eliminate), including functional fit and technical fit.
This ontology is designed to align with the Linked.Archi meta repository style and can be published with versioned IRIs and Widoco documentation.
Application
An application in the application portfolio being assessed with the TIME framework.
Business capability
A business capability supported by one or more applications. Modeled as a SKOS concept for flexible capability taxonomies.
Technology component
A technology component (platform, runtime, database, service, infrastructure, etc.) used by an application.
Person
A person (assessor, business owner, IT owner, etc.).
Fit assessment
A point-in-time assessment of an application's functional fit and technical fit resulting in a TIME disposition. Some organizations also capture cost fitness as a third supporting dimension.
TIME assessment model
A scoring model describing scale and threshold used to derive HIGH/LOW fit ratings from numeric scores (e.g., 1..5 and HIGH if >=4).
Fit criterion
A criterion used to evaluate functional or technical fit (e.g., capability coverage, maintainability, security posture).
Fit criterion score
A scored evaluation of one FitCriterion within a FitAssessment.
Evidence
Evidence supporting a fit assessment decision (e.g., security assessment report, vendor roadmap notice, operations metrics dashboard).
supports capability
Relates an application to a business capability that it supports.
uses technology component
Relates an application to a technology component it depends on or uses.
has fit assessment
Relates an application to one or more fit assessments over time.
assessed application
Relates a fit assessment to the (single) application it assesses.
assessor
Person who performed or recorded the assessment.
business owner
Relates an application to its accountable business owner.
IT owner
Relates an application to its accountable IT owner.
uses assessment model
Relates a fit assessment to the scoring model used to interpret its scores.
has criterion score
Relates a fit assessment to one or more criterion-level scores.
criterion
Relates a criterion score to the criterion being scored.
has evidence
Relates a fit assessment to supporting evidence items.
evidence type
Classifies a piece of evidence by type.
assessment date
Date when the assessment was performed.
valid until
Optional review-by or expiry date for the assessment.
functional fit score
Numeric functional fit score (typically 1..5). Interpretation depends on the assessment model.
technical fit score
Numeric technical fit score (typically 1..5). Interpretation depends on the assessment model.
cost fit score
Numeric cost fitness score (typically 1..5). Some Gartner guidance describes cost fitness as a dimension alongside business and technical fitness when determining a TIME disposition; interpretation depends on the assessment model.
rationale
Narrative justification for fit scores and TIME disposition.
reference URI
A link to an evidence source (document, ticket, dashboard, repository, etc.).
source system
System of record for the evidence (e.g., LeanIX, Jira, ServiceNow).
email
Email address for a person.
criterion score
Numeric score assigned to a criterion (typically 1..5).
criterion justification
Justification for the criterion-level score.
criterion weight
Optional weighting factor used in aggregating criterion scores.
scale minimum
Minimum score on the assessment model scale (e.g., 1).
scale maximum
Maximum score on the assessment model scale (e.g., 5).
high threshold
Threshold at or above which a score is considered HIGH (e.g., 4).
TIME disposition
Disposition in the Gartner TIME framework: Tolerate, Invest, Migrate, Eliminate.
TIME dispositions
Controlled vocabulary for TIME dispositions.
Tolerate
Keep as-is; technically acceptable but low functional fit / limited strategic value.
Invest
Strategic and healthy; continue investing and enhancing.
Migrate
Important to business but technically weak; modernize, replace, or replatform.
Eliminate
Low functional fit and low technical fit; retire/decommission.
Fit rating
Abstract rating for functional/technical fit (HIGH or LOW), typically derived from a scoring model threshold.
Fit ratings
High
Low
Fit dimension
Fit dimensions
Functional
How well the application supports business needs/capabilities.
Technical
Technical quality/maintainability/compatibility/operability posture.
Cost
Relative cost of maintaining the application (cost fitness), often considered alongside business and technical fitness when segmenting enterprise applications.
dimension
Associates a fit criterion with the fit dimension it contributes to (FUNCTIONAL or TECHNICAL).
Assessment status
Assessment statuses
Draft
Approved
Superseded
Rejected
assessment status
Governance status of the fit assessment.
Evidence type
Evidence types
Architecture review
Security assessment
Operations metrics
Cost analysis
Business stakeholder input
Vendor roadmap
Technical debt register
Other
Lifecycle state
Lifecycle states
Plan
Build
Run
Retire
lifecycle state
Lifecycle state of the application (optional).
functional fit rating
HIGH/LOW abstraction of functional fit (often derived from the functionalFitScore and assessment model threshold).
technical fit rating
HIGH/LOW abstraction of technical fit (often derived from the technicalFitScore and assessment model threshold).
cost fit rating
HIGH/LOW abstraction of cost fitness (often derived from the costFitScore and assessment model threshold).
TIME classification outcome for the fit assessment.
Invest assessment
A fit assessment where both functional and technical fit are HIGH.
Migrate assessment
A fit assessment where functional fit is HIGH and technical fit is LOW.
Tolerate assessment
A fit assessment where functional fit is LOW and technical fit is HIGH.
Eliminate assessment
A fit assessment where both functional and technical fit are LOW.