# DPCS 1.0 Specification
**Status:** Draft\
**Version:** 1.0.0-draft
# Chapter 1 --- Introduction
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the purpose, scope, objectives, and foundational
principles of the **Data Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS)**.
DPCS is an implementation-independent specification for describing
portable, contract-first data pipelines. A DPCS Pipeline Contract
defines the logical structure of a pipeline, the relationships between
its constituent steps, the contracts that govern its inputs and outputs,
and the semantic guarantees that SHALL be preserved regardless of the
orchestration technology used to execute it.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, every requirement in this
chapter is normative.
## 2. Scope
DPCS specifies Pipeline Contracts, pipeline interfaces, pipeline graphs,
pipeline steps, contract references, execution requirements, scheduling
intent, quality gates, failure semantics, lineage, compatibility,
diagnostics, and conformance.
DPCS does not prescribe workflow engines, schedulers, execution
runtimes, storage systems, or programming languages.
## 3. Design Goals
The DPCS specification SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- contract first
- platform neutral
- deterministic where declared
- machine readable
- extensible
- interoperable
- version aware
## 4. Non-Goals
This specification SHALL NOT:
- define dataset schemas
- define transformation semantics
- prescribe workflow engine internals
- require a specific orchestration technology
- define scheduling algorithms
- mandate infrastructure providers
## 5. Relationship to Other Standards
ODCS defines what data is.
DTCS defines how data changes.
DPCS defines how validated transformations compose into complete data
pipelines.
``` text
ODCS
(Data Contracts)
│
▼
DTCS
(Transformation Contracts)
│
▼
DPCS
(Pipeline Contracts)
```
## 6. Architectural Principles
1. Pipeline definition is independent of execution.
2. Pipeline semantics are independent of orchestration technology.
3. Contracts are the authoritative source of pipeline behavior.
4. Planning and orchestration are distinct processing phases.
5. Observable behavior SHALL be preserved across conforming
implementations.
## 7. Processing Model
``` text
Pipeline Contract
│
▼
Canonical Object Model
│
▼
Validation
│
▼
Pipeline Plan
│
▼
Orchestrator Binding
│
▼
Execution Runtime
```
## 8. Conformance Language
The key words SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, and MAY are to be
interpreted as described by RFC 2119 and RFC 8174 when presented in
uppercase.
## 9. Audience
This specification is intended for standards authors, platform
architects, data engineers, orchestration engine developers, compiler
authors, tooling vendors, and governance teams.
## 10. Summary
The Data Pipeline Contract Standard establishes a portable,
implementation-independent model for describing complete data pipelines
as contracts rather than implementations. By separating pipeline
definition from orchestration technology, DPCS enables organizations to
validate, govern, analyze, version, and migrate pipelines while
preserving semantic intent across heterogeneous execution platforms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 2 --- Core Concepts
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative core concepts of the Data Pipeline
Contract Standard (DPCS).
The concepts defined in this chapter establish the common vocabulary
used throughout the specification. Conforming implementations SHALL
interpret these concepts consistently.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Pipeline
A Pipeline is a logical composition of one or more processing steps that
transform one or more input datasets into one or more output datasets.
A Pipeline SHALL be described by a Pipeline Contract.
A Pipeline is independent of any specific orchestration technology or
execution environment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Pipeline Contract
A Pipeline Contract is the normative description of a Pipeline.
A Pipeline Contract SHALL define the pipeline identity, interfaces,
graph, step definitions, contract references, execution requirements,
and any additional information required by this specification.
The Pipeline Contract is the authoritative source of pipeline semantics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Pipeline Step
A Pipeline Step is an addressable unit of work within a Pipeline.
Each Pipeline Step SHALL possess a stable identifier.
A Pipeline Step MAY reference:
- a DTCS Transformation Contract
- a nested Pipeline Contract
- an implementation-defined operation through an extension
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Pipeline Graph
A Pipeline Graph defines the dependency relationships among Pipeline
Steps.
The Pipeline Graph SHALL express logical execution dependencies rather
than implementation-specific scheduling behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Pipeline Interface
A Pipeline Interface defines the externally visible inputs and outputs
of a Pipeline.
Interfaces SHALL establish the contractual boundary between a Pipeline
and external systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Contract References
Pipeline Contracts SHALL reference external contracts rather than
duplicate their semantics.
References MAY include:
- Data Contracts
- Transformation Contracts
- Pipeline Contracts
Referenced contracts retain their own identities, versions, and
compatibility requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Pipeline Plan
A Pipeline Plan is the canonical, implementation-independent
representation of a validated Pipeline Contract.
The Pipeline Plan SHALL preserve the semantic intent of the originating
Pipeline Contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Orchestrator Binding
An Orchestrator Binding translates a Pipeline Plan into an
implementation-specific representation suitable for a target
orchestration platform.
Bindings SHALL preserve the observable semantics of the Pipeline Plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Execution Runtime
An Execution Runtime executes an Orchestrator Binding.
Runtime behavior is outside the scope of this specification except where
necessary to preserve contractual semantics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Semantic Preservation
Throughout processing, conforming implementations SHALL preserve:
- pipeline identity
- declared interfaces
- dependency relationships
- contract references
- lineage
- observable behavior
Implementation details MAY differ provided these semantics remain
equivalent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Summary
The concepts defined in this chapter form the conceptual foundation of
DPCS. They establish a clear separation between pipeline definition,
planning, orchestration, and execution, enabling portable,
contract-first pipelines across heterogeneous platforms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 3 --- Canonical Object Model
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Canonical Object Model (COM) for the
Data Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS).
The Canonical Object Model is the authoritative in-memory representation
of a Pipeline Contract. Every conforming implementation SHALL construct
or operate on a logically equivalent Canonical Object Model regardless
of the source serialization format.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Canonical Object Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- serialization independent
- deterministic
- machine readable
- extensible
- version aware
The Canonical Object Model SHALL preserve the complete semantic meaning
of a Pipeline Contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Canonical Representation
A Pipeline Contract SHALL be transformed into a Canonical Object Model
before semantic validation, planning, compatibility analysis, or
orchestrator binding.
Equivalent Pipeline Contracts expressed in different serialization
formats SHALL produce semantically equivalent Canonical Object Models.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Root Object
The root object SHALL represent a single Pipeline Contract.
The root object SHALL include:
- pipeline identity
- metadata
- interface definitions
- pipeline graph
- pipeline steps
- contract references
- execution requirements
- quality gates
- lineage information
- extension data
Additional fields MAY be defined through the DPCS Extensibility Model.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Object Identity
Every addressable object within the Canonical Object Model SHALL possess
a stable identity within the scope of the Pipeline Contract.
Identifiers SHALL remain stable throughout parsing, validation,
planning, and orchestrator binding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Object Relationships
Relationships between objects SHALL be represented explicitly.
Implementations SHALL preserve:
- parent-child relationships
- graph relationships
- contract references
- dependency relationships
- lineage relationships
Relationship semantics SHALL NOT depend upon serialization order.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Serialization Independence
The Canonical Object Model SHALL NOT depend upon any specific
serialization format.
Equivalent YAML, JSON, TOML, XML, or future serializations SHALL produce
equivalent Canonical Object Models when expressing equivalent Pipeline
Contracts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Extension Preservation
Unknown extension fields SHALL be preserved when permitted by the DPCS
Extensibility Model.
Extension preservation SHALL NOT modify standardized semantics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Validation Requirements
Implementations SHALL validate:
- required objects
- identifier uniqueness
- relationship consistency
- graph integrity
- reference integrity
- extension structure
Validation failures SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Semantic Preservation
Construction of the Canonical Object Model SHALL preserve:
- pipeline identity
- pipeline interfaces
- graph topology
- step definitions
- contract references
- declared execution intent
Construction SHALL NOT introduce observable semantic changes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- construct a semantically equivalent Canonical Object Model
- preserve object identity
- preserve object relationships
- preserve extension information where required
- reject structurally invalid Pipeline Contracts through standardized
Diagnostics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Summary
The Canonical Object Model provides the semantic foundation for all
subsequent DPCS processing. By separating serialization from semantics,
DPCS enables independent implementations to perform validation,
planning, compatibility analysis, and orchestrator binding using a
common, implementation-independent representation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 4 --- Pipeline Interface
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Pipeline Interface Model for the Data
Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS).
A Pipeline Interface specifies the externally visible inputs and outputs
of a Pipeline Contract. Interfaces establish the contractual boundary
between a pipeline and the systems, datasets, services, or pipelines
with which it interacts.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Pipeline Interface Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- contract first
- machine readable
- deterministic
- version aware
- extensible
Pipeline interfaces SHALL describe observable behavior without
prescribing execution details.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Interface Model
Every Pipeline Contract SHALL define one Pipeline Interface.
A Pipeline Interface SHALL describe:
- pipeline inputs
- pipeline outputs
- interface identifiers
- contract references
- metadata required by this specification
The interface SHALL represent the complete external boundary of the
Pipeline Contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Pipeline Inputs
Pipeline inputs identify the external datasets, streams, events, or
artifacts consumed by a pipeline.
Each input SHALL possess:
- a stable identifier
- an interface name
- a declared contract reference
- a logical purpose
Inputs MAY reference:
- Data Contracts
- external systems
- outputs from other Pipeline Contracts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Pipeline Outputs
Pipeline outputs identify the externally visible products produced by a
pipeline.
Each output SHALL possess:
- a stable identifier
- an interface name
- a declared contract reference
- a logical purpose
Outputs SHALL represent the observable results of successful pipeline
execution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Contract References
Inputs and outputs SHOULD reference external contracts rather than
duplicate their definitions.
Referenced contracts SHALL retain independent identities, versions, and
compatibility requirements.
Implementations SHALL validate referenced contracts according to
applicable DPCS profiles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Interface Compatibility
Interface compatibility SHALL be evaluated independently of execution
technology.
Compatibility analysis SHOULD consider:
- referenced contracts
- interface identity
- logical types
- required inputs
- declared outputs
Version identifiers alone SHALL NOT determine compatibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Interface Validation
Implementations SHALL validate:
- required inputs
- required outputs
- identifier uniqueness
- contract references
- interface completeness
Validation failures SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Semantic Preservation
Parsing, validation, planning, orchestrator binding, and execution SHALL
preserve:
- interface identity
- declared inputs
- declared outputs
- contract references
- observable interface behavior
Implementations SHALL NOT introduce observable interface changes unless
explicitly authorized by the Pipeline Contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Extensibility
The Pipeline Interface MAY be extended through the DPCS Extensibility
Model.
Extensions SHALL preserve standardized interface semantics and SHALL NOT
redefine mandatory interface behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- preserve interface identity
- preserve declared inputs and outputs
- preserve contract references
- validate interface integrity
- reject invalid interfaces through standardized Diagnostics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Summary
The Pipeline Interface Model defines the contractual boundary between a
Pipeline Contract and the systems with which it interacts.
By standardizing pipeline interfaces independently of orchestration
technology, DPCS enables portable pipeline definitions whose externally
observable behavior remains consistent across conforming
implementations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 5 --- Pipeline Graph
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Pipeline Graph Model for the Data
Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS).
A Pipeline Graph describes the logical dependency relationships among
Pipeline Steps. It defines how work is composed within a Pipeline
Contract while remaining independent of any specific orchestration
technology or execution strategy.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Pipeline Graph Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- deterministic
- machine readable
- analyzable
- extensible
- semantically preserving
The Pipeline Graph SHALL describe logical dependencies rather than
implementation-specific scheduling behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Graph Model
Every Pipeline Contract SHALL define exactly one Pipeline Graph.
The Pipeline Graph SHALL consist of:
- Pipeline Steps
- dependency relationships
- graph metadata
- graph entry points
- graph exit points
The graph SHALL define the complete logical execution topology of the
Pipeline Contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Graph Topology
The Pipeline Graph SHALL represent directed relationships between
Pipeline Steps.
Each relationship SHALL explicitly identify:
- source step
- destination step
- dependency type
The interpretation of dependency types SHALL be defined by this
specification or approved extensions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Directed Acyclic Graphs
The standard execution model for DPCS SHALL be a Directed Acyclic Graph
(DAG).
Unless explicitly permitted by a DPCS profile or extension, Pipeline
Graphs SHALL NOT contain cycles.
Implementations SHALL detect prohibited cycles during validation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Branching and Merging
A Pipeline Graph MAY contain:
- branches
- merges
- fan-out operations
- fan-in operations
Branching semantics SHALL be explicitly represented within the graph
structure and SHALL NOT depend upon serialization order.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Parallelism
Independent Pipeline Steps MAY execute concurrently.
The Pipeline Graph expresses logical dependencies only and SHALL NOT
prescribe a scheduling algorithm or concurrency model.
Implementations MAY choose any execution strategy that preserves
observable semantics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Subgraphs
Pipeline Graphs MAY reference nested Pipeline Contracts.
Nested Pipeline Contracts SHALL preserve their own identities,
interfaces, and semantic boundaries.
Implementations SHALL preserve parent-child relationships between
Pipeline Graphs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Graph Validation
Implementations SHALL validate:
- graph completeness
- identifier uniqueness
- dependency integrity
- prohibited cycles
- unreachable Pipeline Steps
- duplicate edges
Validation failures SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Semantic Preservation
Parsing, validation, planning, orchestrator binding, and execution SHALL
preserve:
- graph topology
- dependency relationships
- branching behavior
- merge behavior
- observable execution semantics
Implementation optimizations SHALL NOT alter the logical meaning of the
Pipeline Graph.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Extensibility
The Pipeline Graph MAY be extended through the DPCS Extensibility Model.
Extensions SHALL preserve standardized graph semantics and SHALL NOT
redefine mandatory graph behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- construct a valid Pipeline Graph
- preserve graph topology
- preserve dependency relationships
- detect prohibited cycles
- reject invalid Pipeline Graphs through standardized Diagnostics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 13. Summary
The Pipeline Graph Model provides the logical execution topology for a
Pipeline Contract.
By separating dependency semantics from orchestration technology, DPCS
enables portable, analyzable, and interoperable pipeline definitions
whose observable behavior remains consistent across conforming
implementations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 6 --- Pipeline Steps
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Pipeline Step Model for the Data
Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS).
A Pipeline Step is the fundamental executable unit within a Pipeline
Contract. Pipeline Steps define *what* logical operation occurs within a
pipeline while remaining independent of any specific orchestration
platform or execution technology.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Pipeline Step Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- contract first
- machine readable
- deterministic where declared
- composable
- extensible
Pipeline Steps SHALL define logical behavior rather than
implementation-specific execution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Pipeline Step Model
Every Pipeline Step SHALL define:
- a stable identifier
- a step type
- declared inputs
- declared outputs
- dependency relationships
- execution metadata where required
- extension metadata where applicable
Pipeline Steps SHALL exist only within the scope of a Pipeline Contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Step Identity
Each Pipeline Step SHALL possess a unique identifier within its Pipeline
Contract.
Identifiers SHALL remain stable throughout parsing, validation,
planning, orchestrator binding, and execution.
Published identifiers SHOULD NOT be reused for different logical
operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Step Types
A Pipeline Step MAY represent:
- a DTCS Transformation Contract
- a nested Pipeline Contract
- a data ingress operation
- a data egress operation
- an implementation-defined operation provided through a DPCS
extension
The semantic meaning of every step type SHALL be explicitly defined.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Inputs and Outputs
Every Pipeline Step SHALL declare its logical inputs and outputs.
Inputs and outputs SHALL reference pipeline interfaces, intermediate
datasets, or externally referenced contracts.
Implementations SHALL validate that every required input is satisfiable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Dependency Relationships
Pipeline Steps SHALL declare logical dependencies through the Pipeline
Graph defined in Chapter 5.
Dependencies SHALL express ordering constraints and SHALL NOT prescribe
scheduling algorithms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Nested Pipelines
A Pipeline Step MAY reference another Pipeline Contract.
Nested Pipeline Contracts SHALL preserve their own interfaces,
identities, and semantic boundaries.
Implementations SHALL preserve parent-child relationships during
planning and orchestrator binding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Validation
Implementations SHALL validate:
- step identity
- step type
- declared inputs
- declared outputs
- dependency consistency
- referenced contracts
- extension integrity
Validation failures SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Semantic Preservation
Parsing, validation, planning, orchestrator binding, and execution SHALL
preserve:
- step identity
- declared behavior
- contract references
- observable inputs and outputs
- dependency semantics
Implementation-specific optimizations SHALL NOT alter the logical
meaning of a Pipeline Step.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Extensibility
Pipeline Steps MAY be extended through the DPCS Extensibility Model.
Extensions SHALL preserve standardized Pipeline Step semantics and SHALL
NOT redefine mandatory behavior established by this specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- construct valid Pipeline Steps
- preserve Pipeline Step identity
- preserve declared interfaces
- preserve dependency semantics
- reject invalid Pipeline Steps through standardized Diagnostics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 13. Summary
The Pipeline Step Model defines the fundamental building blocks from
which Pipeline Contracts are composed.
By separating logical pipeline operations from execution technologies,
DPCS enables portable, analyzable, and interoperable pipeline
definitions that can be planned, validated, and bound to multiple
orchestration platforms while preserving identical observable semantics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 7 --- Contract References
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Contract Reference Model for the Data
Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS).
Contract References enable a Pipeline Contract to compose existing
contracts without duplicating their definitions. A Pipeline Contract
SHALL reference external contracts through stable identifiers while
preserving the independent lifecycle, versioning, and semantics of each
referenced contract.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Contract Reference Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- contract first
- machine readable
- deterministic
- version aware
- extensible
Contract References SHALL promote composition rather than duplication.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Contract Reference Model
A Contract Reference identifies an external contract required by a
Pipeline Contract.
A Contract Reference SHALL define:
- reference identifier
- contract type
- contract location or resolution mechanism
- version requirements
- compatibility requirements where applicable
Contract References SHALL NOT embed the complete definition of the
referenced contract unless explicitly permitted by a DPCS profile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Supported Contract Types
DPCS recognizes the following contract types:
- Data Contracts (ODCS)
- Transformation Contracts (DTCS)
- Pipeline Contracts (DPCS)
- Extension-defined contract types
Each referenced contract SHALL preserve its own normative semantics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Reference Resolution
Implementations SHALL resolve Contract References before pipeline
planning.
Resolution MAY occur through:
- local files
- registries
- package repositories
- network services
- implementation-defined mechanisms
The resolution mechanism SHALL NOT alter the semantic meaning of the
referenced contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Version and Compatibility
Every Contract Reference SHOULD declare version requirements.
Implementations SHALL evaluate compatibility independently of version
identifiers.
A resolved contract SHALL satisfy all mandatory compatibility
requirements before successful validation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Identity Preservation
Referenced contracts SHALL retain:
- contract identity
- version identity
- compatibility declarations
- extension metadata
Pipeline Contracts SHALL NOT redefine the semantics of referenced
contracts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Validation
Implementations SHALL validate:
- reference syntax
- contract type
- identifier integrity
- version requirements
- compatibility requirements
- successful resolution
Validation failures SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Semantic Preservation
Parsing, validation, planning, orchestrator binding, and execution SHALL
preserve:
- reference identity
- referenced contract identity
- compatibility declarations
- observable contract semantics
Implementations SHALL NOT substitute semantically incompatible contracts
without explicit authorization.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Extensibility
The Contract Reference Model MAY be extended through the DPCS
Extensibility Model.
Extensions SHALL preserve standardized reference semantics and SHALL NOT
redefine mandatory behavior established by this specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- preserve Contract Reference identity
- resolve mandatory references
- validate version and compatibility requirements
- preserve referenced contract semantics
- reject invalid Contract References through standardized Diagnostics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Summary
The Contract Reference Model enables Pipeline Contracts to compose
reusable Data Contracts, Transformation Contracts, and Pipeline
Contracts while preserving their independent identities and semantics.
By standardizing contract composition rather than duplication, DPCS
supports modular, portable, and governable pipeline definitions across
heterogeneous execution environments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 8 --- Data Flow
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Data Flow Model for the Data Pipeline
Contract Standard (DPCS).
The Data Flow Model specifies how datasets move through a Pipeline
Contract. It describes logical movement and dependency relationships
independently of storage systems, transport mechanisms, execution
engines, or orchestration technologies.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Data Flow Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- contract first
- deterministic
- machine readable
- analyzable
- extensible
Data Flow SHALL describe logical movement rather than physical
implementation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Data Flow Model
A Data Flow connects Pipeline Interfaces and Pipeline Steps through
explicitly declared dataset relationships.
Every Data Flow SHALL define:
- source
- destination
- dataset identity
- associated contract reference
- flow metadata where required
Implementations SHALL preserve the declared Data Flow throughout
processing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Dataset Identity
Every dataset participating in a Pipeline Contract SHALL possess a
stable logical identity.
Dataset identities SHALL remain stable across validation, planning,
orchestrator binding, and execution.
Physical storage locations SHALL NOT define dataset identity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Sources and Destinations
A Data Flow MAY originate from:
- a Pipeline Interface input
- a Pipeline Step output
- a nested Pipeline Contract output
A Data Flow MAY terminate at:
- a Pipeline Step input
- a Pipeline Interface output
- a nested Pipeline Contract input
Every endpoint SHALL be explicitly identified.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Intermediate Datasets
Pipeline Steps MAY produce intermediate datasets.
Intermediate datasets SHALL:
- possess stable logical identities
- participate in dependency analysis
- preserve lineage relationships
Intermediate datasets MAY or MAY NOT be physically materialized.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Materialization
Whether a dataset is materialized is an implementation decision unless
explicitly required by a Pipeline Contract or DPCS profile.
Materialization SHALL NOT change the observable semantics of the
Pipeline Contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Data Dependencies
Data Flow SHALL establish logical dependencies between Pipeline Steps.
Implementations SHALL use declared Data Flow relationships during
planning and validation.
Dependency analysis SHALL be independent of execution technology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Validation
Implementations SHALL validate:
- dataset identity
- source existence
- destination existence
- contract references
- dependency consistency
- unreachable datasets
Validation failures SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Semantic Preservation
Parsing, validation, planning, orchestrator binding, and execution SHALL
preserve:
- dataset identity
- declared flow relationships
- dependency semantics
- observable inputs and outputs
- lineage
Implementation optimizations SHALL NOT alter logical Data Flow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Extensibility
The Data Flow Model MAY be extended through the DPCS Extensibility
Model.
Extensions SHALL preserve standardized Data Flow semantics and SHALL NOT
redefine mandatory behavior established by this specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- preserve dataset identities
- preserve Data Flow relationships
- validate flow integrity
- preserve declared contract references
- reject invalid Data Flow definitions through standardized
Diagnostics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 13. Summary
The Data Flow Model defines the logical movement of datasets through a
Pipeline Contract.
By separating logical data movement from physical execution and storage,
DPCS enables portable pipeline definitions that preserve identical
observable semantics across heterogeneous orchestration platforms and
execution environments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 9 --- Control Flow
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Control Flow Model for the Data
Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS).
The Control Flow Model specifies the logical ordering and coordination
of Pipeline Steps within a Pipeline Contract. It defines execution
intent independently of orchestration technologies, scheduling
algorithms, or runtime implementations.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Control Flow Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- deterministic where declared
- machine readable
- analyzable
- semantically preserving
- extensible
Control Flow SHALL describe logical execution constraints rather than
implementation-specific scheduling behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Control Flow Model
Control Flow defines the logical ordering of Pipeline Steps.
Every Control Flow relationship SHALL be explicitly represented through
the Pipeline Graph and associated dependency metadata.
Control Flow SHALL coordinate execution without modifying the semantic
behavior of individual Pipeline Steps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Sequential Execution
Pipeline Steps MAY execute sequentially.
Sequential execution SHALL require that predecessor steps complete
successfully before dependent steps begin unless otherwise specified by
a DPCS profile or extension.
Sequential relationships SHALL be explicitly represented.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Parallel Execution
Independent Pipeline Steps MAY execute concurrently.
Parallel execution SHALL be permitted only when no declared dependency
relationship requires ordering.
Implementations MAY choose any scheduling strategy that preserves
observable semantics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Conditional Execution
A Pipeline Contract MAY define conditional execution paths.
Conditions SHALL be expressed declaratively.
Conditional behavior SHALL preserve deterministic semantics when
equivalent inputs and evaluation contexts are provided.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Synchronization
Control Flow MAY require synchronization between Pipeline Steps.
Synchronization points SHALL explicitly identify the required
predecessor relationships.
Synchronization semantics SHALL remain independent of orchestration
technology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Event-Driven Execution
Pipeline Contracts MAY declare that execution is initiated by one or
more events.
Event definitions SHALL describe logical triggering conditions rather
than implementation-specific event mechanisms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Control Dependencies
Control dependencies SHALL define ordering constraints independently of
Data Flow.
A Pipeline Contract MAY contain both Data Flow dependencies and Control
Flow dependencies.
Implementations SHALL preserve both dependency models throughout
planning and orchestrator binding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Validation
Implementations SHALL validate:
- control dependency integrity
- unreachable Pipeline Steps
- invalid conditional relationships
- synchronization consistency
- conflicting dependency declarations
Validation failures SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Semantic Preservation
Parsing, validation, planning, orchestrator binding, and execution SHALL
preserve:
- declared execution ordering
- conditional semantics
- synchronization semantics
- dependency relationships
- observable pipeline behavior
Implementation optimizations SHALL NOT alter declared Control Flow
semantics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Extensibility
The Control Flow Model MAY be extended through the DPCS Extensibility
Model.
Extensions SHALL preserve standardized Control Flow semantics and SHALL
NOT redefine mandatory behavior established by this specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 13. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- preserve Control Flow relationships
- preserve dependency semantics
- validate declared execution constraints
- reject invalid Control Flow definitions through standardized
Diagnostics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 14. Summary
The Control Flow Model defines the logical coordination of Pipeline
Steps within a Pipeline Contract.
By separating execution intent from orchestration technology, DPCS
enables portable, analyzable, and interoperable pipeline definitions
whose ordering constraints and observable behavior remain consistent
across conforming implementations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 10 --- Execution Requirements
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Execution Requirements Model for the
Data Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS).
Execution Requirements describe the capabilities, constraints, and
environmental assumptions necessary to execute a Pipeline Contract.
These requirements define *what* a pipeline needs to execute correctly
without prescribing *how* an implementation satisfies those needs.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Execution Requirements Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- platform neutral
- machine readable
- deterministic
- analyzable
- extensible
Execution Requirements SHALL describe execution constraints without
defining orchestration behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Execution Requirements Model
A Pipeline Contract MAY declare one or more Execution Requirements.
Execution Requirements MAY describe:
- compute resources
- memory requirements
- storage requirements
- networking requirements
- execution environment
- isolation requirements
- external dependencies
- implementation capabilities
Execution Requirements SHALL be treated as declarative constraints.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Resource Requirements
A Pipeline Contract MAY declare logical resource requirements.
Resource declarations MAY include:
- processor requirements
- memory requirements
- storage capacity
- accelerator requirements
- bandwidth expectations
Resource declarations SHALL remain independent of vendor-specific
infrastructure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Execution Environment
Execution Requirements MAY declare characteristics of the execution
environment.
Environment characteristics MAY include:
- operating system constraints
- runtime dependencies
- software capabilities
- container requirements
- execution profiles
Environment declarations SHALL NOT require a specific implementation
unless explicitly defined by a DPCS profile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Isolation Requirements
A Pipeline Contract MAY declare execution isolation requirements.
Isolation requirements MAY include:
- process isolation
- container isolation
- virtual machine isolation
- network isolation
- security domains
Implementations MAY satisfy isolation requirements using
implementation-specific mechanisms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. External Dependencies
Execution Requirements MAY identify external services required for
successful execution.
Dependencies SHALL identify:
- logical service identity
- required capability
- availability expectations
Service implementations SHALL remain outside the scope of this
specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Capability Matching
Before execution planning, implementations SHALL evaluate declared
Execution Requirements against available execution capabilities.
Unsatisfied mandatory requirements SHALL prevent successful planning
unless otherwise permitted by a DPCS profile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Validation
Implementations SHALL validate:
- requirement completeness
- identifier consistency
- capability references
- profile compatibility
- extension integrity
Validation failures SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Semantic Preservation
Execution Requirements SHALL preserve:
- declared execution constraints
- capability expectations
- isolation semantics
- dependency declarations
Implementation-specific optimizations SHALL NOT alter declared execution
intent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Extensibility
Execution Requirements MAY be extended through the DPCS Extensibility
Model.
Extensions SHALL preserve standardized semantics and SHALL NOT redefine
mandatory behavior established by this specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- preserve declared Execution Requirements
- evaluate mandatory requirements before planning
- preserve execution constraint semantics
- reject invalid Execution Requirements through standardized
Diagnostics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 13. Summary
The Execution Requirements Model defines the declarative constraints
necessary to execute a Pipeline Contract.
By separating execution requirements from orchestration technologies and
infrastructure implementations, DPCS enables portable pipeline
definitions whose execution intent can be satisfied across diverse
computing environments while preserving consistent semantic behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 11 --- Scheduling Intent
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Scheduling Intent Model for the Data
Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS).
Scheduling Intent expresses *when* and *under what logical conditions* a
Pipeline Contract is intended to execute. It communicates execution
intent without prescribing a specific scheduler, orchestration platform,
or triggering mechanism.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Scheduling Intent Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- declarative
- machine readable
- deterministic where declared
- portable
- extensible
Scheduling Intent SHALL describe desired execution behavior rather than
implementation-specific scheduling configuration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Scheduling Intent Model
A Pipeline Contract MAY declare one or more Scheduling Intent
definitions.
Each Scheduling Intent SHALL identify:
- scheduling mode
- triggering conditions
- execution frequency where applicable
- timing constraints
- applicable execution policies
Scheduling Intent SHALL be evaluated during planning and orchestrator
binding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Scheduling Modes
A Pipeline Contract MAY declare one or more of the following scheduling
modes:
- manual
- on-demand
- scheduled
- event-driven
- streaming
- continuous
- implementation-defined extension modes
Implementations SHALL preserve the declared scheduling mode throughout
planning and binding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Time-Based Scheduling
Time-based Scheduling Intent MAY declare:
- execution frequency
- execution windows
- maintenance windows
- blackout periods
- execution deadlines
The representation of time SHALL remain implementation independent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Event-Driven Scheduling
Scheduling Intent MAY declare logical events that initiate execution.
Event declarations SHALL identify:
- event identity
- event source
- triggering conditions
The mechanism by which events are delivered is outside the scope of this
specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Streaming Execution
A Pipeline Contract MAY declare continuous or streaming execution
intent.
Streaming declarations SHALL describe logical processing expectations
and SHALL NOT require a specific streaming technology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Scheduling Constraints
Scheduling Intent MAY define constraints including:
- earliest execution time
- latest execution time
- execution deadlines
- concurrency limitations
- ordering constraints
Constraints SHALL be preserved throughout planning and orchestrator
binding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Validation
Implementations SHALL validate:
- scheduling mode declarations
- timing consistency
- constraint consistency
- event definitions
- extension integrity
Validation failures SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Semantic Preservation
Parsing, validation, planning, orchestrator binding, and execution SHALL
preserve:
- scheduling intent
- triggering semantics
- timing constraints
- execution policies
Implementation-specific schedulers SHALL NOT alter the declared
Scheduling Intent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Extensibility
The Scheduling Intent Model MAY be extended through the DPCS
Extensibility Model.
Extensions SHALL preserve standardized scheduling semantics and SHALL
NOT redefine mandatory behavior established by this specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- preserve Scheduling Intent declarations
- preserve scheduling constraints
- validate scheduling definitions
- reject invalid Scheduling Intent through standardized Diagnostics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 13. Summary
The Scheduling Intent Model defines the logical timing and triggering
behavior of a Pipeline Contract independently of any scheduler or
orchestration platform.
By separating execution intent from scheduling implementation, DPCS
enables portable pipeline definitions that can be bound to diverse
orchestration systems while preserving identical observable scheduling
semantics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 12 --- Quality Gates
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Quality Gate Model for the Data
Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS).
Quality Gates establish explicit decision points within a Pipeline
Contract where declared conditions SHALL be evaluated before pipeline
execution is permitted to continue. Quality Gates provide
contract-defined controls for validating data quality, contract
conformance, policy compliance, and operational readiness.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Quality Gate Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- contract first
- deterministic where declared
- machine readable
- auditable
- extensible
Quality Gates SHALL express logical acceptance criteria rather than
implementation-specific validation mechanisms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Quality Gate Model
A Pipeline Contract MAY declare one or more Quality Gates.
Each Quality Gate SHALL define:
- a stable identifier
- a logical purpose
- one or more evaluation criteria
- success behavior
- failure behavior
- optional metadata
Quality Gates SHALL be evaluated at their declared point within the
Pipeline Contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Gate Categories
Standard Quality Gate categories MAY include:
- contract validation
- data quality
- schema compatibility
- policy compliance
- security validation
- operational readiness
- implementation-defined extension categories
Implementations SHALL preserve declared gate categories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation criteria SHALL be expressed declaratively.
Criteria MAY reference:
- ODCS Data Contracts
- DTCS Transformation Contracts
- DPCS Pipeline Contracts
- implementation-defined extensions
Evaluation SHALL be deterministic for equivalent inputs and execution
context.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Success and Failure Semantics
Every Quality Gate SHALL define the outcome of successful and
unsuccessful evaluation.
Failure behavior MAY include:
- abort pipeline execution
- retry
- route to an alternate path
- request approval
- record diagnostics
- implementation-defined behavior through extensions
Failure semantics SHALL be explicitly declared.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Placement Within a Pipeline
Quality Gates MAY appear:
- before pipeline execution
- before a Pipeline Step
- after a Pipeline Step
- before pipeline completion
- at implementation-defined checkpoints
The placement of a Quality Gate SHALL be preserved during planning and
orchestrator binding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Validation
Implementations SHALL validate:
- gate identifiers
- evaluation criteria
- referenced contracts
- declared outcomes
- extension integrity
Validation failures SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Semantic Preservation
Parsing, validation, planning, orchestrator binding, and execution SHALL
preserve:
- gate identity
- evaluation criteria
- declared success behavior
- declared failure behavior
- observable quality semantics
Implementation-specific optimizations SHALL NOT alter declared Quality
Gate behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Extensibility
The Quality Gate Model MAY be extended through the DPCS Extensibility
Model.
Extensions SHALL preserve standardized Quality Gate semantics and SHALL
NOT redefine mandatory behavior established by this specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- preserve Quality Gate definitions
- preserve evaluation semantics
- validate gate integrity
- reject invalid Quality Gates through standardized Diagnostics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Summary
The Quality Gate Model provides a standardized mechanism for expressing
contract-defined decision points within a Pipeline Contract.
By separating quality intent from implementation-specific validation
technologies, DPCS enables portable pipelines whose governance,
compliance, and acceptance criteria remain consistent across
heterogeneous orchestration platforms and execution environments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 13 --- Failure Semantics
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Failure Semantics Model for the Data
Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS).
Failure Semantics specify how a Pipeline Contract declares and
communicates expected behavior when errors, interruptions, policy
violations, or operational failures occur. The model defines logical
failure behavior independently of orchestration technologies and
execution platforms.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Failure Semantics Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- contract first
- deterministic where declared
- machine readable
- auditable
- extensible
Failure Semantics SHALL describe *what* behavior is required, not *how*
it is implemented.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Failure Semantics Model
A Pipeline Contract MAY declare one or more Failure Semantics.
Each declaration SHALL identify:
- a stable identifier
- applicable scope
- triggering conditions
- required behavior
- optional recovery behavior
- optional metadata
Failure Semantics SHALL apply only within their declared scope.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Failure Categories
Standard failure categories MAY include:
- validation failures
- data quality failures
- execution failures
- dependency failures
- infrastructure failures
- timeout failures
- security failures
- policy failures
- implementation-defined extension categories
Implementations SHALL preserve declared failure categories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Failure Responses
A Pipeline Contract MAY declare one or more logical responses,
including:
- abort execution
- retry
- compensate
- continue
- skip
- route to an alternate execution path
- require manual approval
- emit diagnostics
Responses SHALL be explicitly declared.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Retry Semantics
Retry behavior MAY define:
- retry eligibility
- maximum attempts
- retry conditions
- retry delay policy
- retry termination conditions
Retry declarations SHALL remain implementation independent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Compensation
Pipeline Contracts MAY declare compensation behavior.
Compensation describes logical corrective actions intended to mitigate
previously completed work.
Compensation SHALL preserve the observable semantics of the Pipeline
Contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Recovery
Recovery semantics MAY define:
- restart behavior
- resume behavior
- rollback expectations
- checkpoint usage
- state restoration requirements
Recovery declarations SHALL describe logical behavior rather than
implementation mechanisms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Validation
Implementations SHALL validate:
- failure identifiers
- triggering conditions
- response definitions
- retry declarations
- recovery declarations
- extension integrity
Validation failures SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Semantic Preservation
Parsing, validation, planning, orchestrator binding, and execution SHALL
preserve:
- declared failure behavior
- retry semantics
- compensation semantics
- recovery semantics
- observable pipeline behavior
Implementation optimizations SHALL NOT alter declared Failure Semantics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Extensibility
The Failure Semantics Model MAY be extended through the DPCS
Extensibility Model.
Extensions SHALL preserve standardized semantics and SHALL NOT redefine
mandatory behavior established by this specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- preserve declared Failure Semantics
- validate failure definitions
- preserve observable failure behavior
- reject invalid Failure Semantics through standardized Diagnostics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 13. Summary
The Failure Semantics Model provides a standardized, contract-first
mechanism for describing how pipelines are expected to behave when
failures occur.
By separating logical failure behavior from orchestration-specific
implementation, DPCS enables portable pipeline definitions that preserve
consistent recovery, retry, compensation, and governance semantics
across heterogeneous execution environments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 14 --- Pipeline Lineage
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Pipeline Lineage Model for the Data
Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS).
Pipeline Lineage describes the logical provenance of datasets, Pipeline
Steps, and Pipeline Contracts as data moves through a pipeline. The
Lineage Model enables implementations to reason about origin,
transformation, dependencies, and traceability independently of
orchestration technologies or execution platforms.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Pipeline Lineage Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- contract first
- machine readable
- deterministic
- traceable
- auditable
- extensible
Pipeline Lineage SHALL describe logical provenance rather than
implementation-specific metadata collection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Lineage Model
A Pipeline Contract MAY declare one or more Lineage relationships.
Pipeline Lineage SHALL describe:
- dataset provenance
- Pipeline Step provenance
- Pipeline Contract provenance
- dependency relationships
- transformation history
- execution traceability where applicable
Lineage SHALL be represented independently of execution technology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Dataset Lineage
Dataset Lineage identifies the logical origin and evolution of datasets
throughout a Pipeline Contract.
Dataset Lineage SHALL preserve:
- dataset identity
- producing Pipeline Step
- consuming Pipeline Steps
- associated Data Contracts
- transformation relationships
Physical storage locations SHALL NOT define lineage identity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Pipeline Step Lineage
Pipeline Step Lineage identifies the relationships among Pipeline Steps
responsible for producing and consuming datasets.
Step Lineage SHALL preserve:
- step identity
- predecessor relationships
- successor relationships
- dependency semantics
- contract references
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Pipeline Provenance
A Pipeline Contract MAY declare provenance information describing:
- originating Pipeline Contract
- parent Pipeline Contracts
- nested Pipeline Contracts
- imported Pipeline Contracts
- version history
Provenance SHALL preserve logical identity independently of
implementation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Auditability
Implementations SHOULD provide sufficient information to support
auditing of declared Lineage relationships.
Audit information MAY include:
- contract identifiers
- version identifiers
- timestamps
- implementation-defined execution metadata
Audit metadata SHALL NOT modify declared lineage semantics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Validation
Implementations SHALL validate:
- lineage identifiers
- referenced datasets
- referenced Pipeline Steps
- contract references
- provenance consistency
- extension integrity
Validation failures SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Semantic Preservation
Parsing, validation, planning, orchestrator binding, and execution SHALL
preserve:
- lineage identity
- dataset provenance
- Pipeline Step provenance
- Pipeline Contract provenance
- dependency semantics
Implementation optimizations SHALL NOT alter declared Lineage
relationships.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Extensibility
The Pipeline Lineage Model MAY be extended through the DPCS
Extensibility Model.
Extensions SHALL preserve standardized Lineage semantics and SHALL NOT
redefine mandatory behavior established by this specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- preserve declared Lineage relationships
- preserve dataset provenance
- preserve Pipeline Step provenance
- validate Lineage definitions
- reject invalid Lineage declarations through standardized Diagnostics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Summary
The Pipeline Lineage Model provides a standardized representation of
provenance throughout a Pipeline Contract.
By separating logical lineage from implementation-specific execution
metadata, DPCS enables portable, interoperable, and auditable pipeline
definitions that preserve end-to-end traceability across heterogeneous
orchestration platforms and execution environments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 15 --- Pipeline Plan
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Pipeline Plan Model for the Data
Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS).
A Pipeline Plan is the canonical, implementation-independent execution
representation produced from a validated Pipeline Contract. It bridges
the gap between declarative pipeline definitions and platform-specific
orchestration while preserving the semantic intent of the original
contract.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Pipeline Plan Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- deterministic
- machine readable
- analyzable
- portable
- semantically preserving
- extensible
A Pipeline Plan SHALL describe executable intent without embedding
orchestrator-specific behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Pipeline Plan Model
A Pipeline Plan SHALL be generated only from a successfully validated
Pipeline Contract.
A Pipeline Plan SHALL include:
- resolved Pipeline Graph
- resolved Pipeline Steps
- resolved contract references
- dependency graph
- execution ordering
- scheduling intent
- quality gates
- failure semantics
- execution requirements
The Pipeline Plan SHALL serve as the canonical input to Orchestrator
Binding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Planning Process
Planning SHALL include, at minimum:
- contract resolution
- graph validation
- dependency analysis
- interface validation
- compatibility evaluation
- execution requirement evaluation
- quality gate integration
Planning SHALL NOT modify the declared semantics of the Pipeline
Contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Dependency Resolution
Implementations SHALL resolve all declared dependencies before producing
a Pipeline Plan.
Resolution SHALL include:
- Pipeline Step dependencies
- Contract References
- Data Flow relationships
- Control Flow relationships
Unresolved mandatory dependencies SHALL prevent successful planning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Canonical Ordering
A Pipeline Plan SHALL establish a deterministic logical ordering of
Pipeline Steps consistent with the validated Pipeline Graph.
The ordering SHALL preserve:
- declared dependencies
- Control Flow semantics
- Data Flow semantics
- observable behavior
The ordering SHALL remain independent of scheduler implementation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Optimization
Implementations MAY perform planning optimizations.
Optimizations SHALL:
- preserve declared semantics
- preserve dependency relationships
- preserve observable behavior
- preserve contract references
Optimizations SHALL NOT introduce semantic changes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Validation
Implementations SHALL validate:
- planning completeness
- dependency resolution
- execution ordering
- contract compatibility
- execution requirements
- extension integrity
Planning failures SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Semantic Preservation
Generation of a Pipeline Plan SHALL preserve:
- pipeline identity
- graph topology
- Pipeline Step identity
- contract references
- execution intent
- scheduling intent
- Quality Gates
- Failure Semantics
- Lineage
A Pipeline Plan SHALL remain semantically equivalent to its originating
Pipeline Contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Extensibility
The Pipeline Plan Model MAY be extended through the DPCS Extensibility
Model.
Extensions SHALL preserve standardized planning semantics and SHALL NOT
redefine mandatory behavior established by this specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- generate a semantically equivalent Pipeline Plan
- preserve dependency relationships
- preserve execution intent
- preserve scheduling intent
- reject invalid Pipeline Plans through standardized Diagnostics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Summary
The Pipeline Plan Model defines the canonical intermediate
representation that connects declarative Pipeline Contracts with
implementation-specific orchestration technologies.
By standardizing planning independently of execution platforms, DPCS
enables portable, analyzable, and interoperable pipeline definitions
that can be compiled into multiple orchestration environments while
preserving identical observable semantics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 16 --- Orchestrator Capability Model
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Orchestrator Capability Model for the
Data Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS).
The Orchestrator Capability Model provides a standardized,
implementation-independent method for describing the capabilities
supported by an orchestration platform. It enables Pipeline Plans to be
evaluated against orchestrator capabilities before binding occurs,
ensuring that a Pipeline Contract can be executed without altering its
declared semantics.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Orchestrator Capability Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- machine readable
- deterministic
- extensible
- portable
- semantically preserving
Capability declarations SHALL describe what an orchestrator can support,
not how it implements those capabilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Capability Model
An Orchestrator Capability Model SHALL declare the features,
constraints, and execution behaviors supported by an orchestration
platform.
Capabilities MAY include:
- scheduling modes
- execution models
- dependency handling
- parallel execution
- event processing
- retry behavior
- checkpoint support
- compensation support
- approval workflows
- extension mechanisms
Capability declarations SHALL remain independent of vendor-specific
configuration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Capability Categories
Capabilities SHOULD be organized into logical categories including:
- scheduling
- execution
- workflow coordination
- quality gates
- failure handling
- lineage
- observability
- security
- extensions
Implementations MAY define additional categories through approved
extensions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Capability Matching
Before Orchestrator Binding, implementations SHALL compare Pipeline Plan
requirements against the declared capabilities of the target
orchestrator.
Mandatory capabilities SHALL be satisfied before successful binding.
Unsupported optional capabilities MAY be ignored when permitted by the
applicable DPCS profile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Capability Profiles
Implementations MAY publish Capability Profiles.
Capability Profiles SHALL identify:
- orchestrator identity
- supported DPCS version
- supported capability set
- known limitations
- implementation-specific metadata
Profiles SHALL NOT modify standardized DPCS semantics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Capability Negotiation
Where multiple orchestrators are available, implementations MAY perform
capability negotiation.
Negotiation SHALL preserve the semantic intent of the Pipeline Plan.
Negotiation SHALL NOT silently weaken mandatory pipeline requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Validation
Implementations SHALL validate:
- capability declarations
- profile consistency
- version compatibility
- mandatory capability support
- extension integrity
Validation failures SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Semantic Preservation
Capability evaluation SHALL preserve:
- Pipeline Plan semantics
- scheduling intent
- execution requirements
- Quality Gates
- Failure Semantics
- dependency relationships
Capability matching SHALL NOT modify the logical behavior of the
Pipeline Plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Extensibility
The Orchestrator Capability Model MAY be extended through the DPCS
Extensibility Model.
Extensions SHALL preserve standardized capability semantics and SHALL
NOT redefine mandatory behavior established by this specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- expose declared orchestrator capabilities
- evaluate Pipeline Plans against declared capabilities
- preserve semantic intent during capability evaluation
- reject unsupported mandatory capabilities through standardized
Diagnostics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Summary
The Orchestrator Capability Model establishes a standardized description
of orchestration platform capabilities independent of any specific
implementation.
By separating capability discovery from orchestration binding, DPCS
enables portable Pipeline Plans to be evaluated objectively against
multiple execution platforms while preserving consistent observable
semantics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 17 --- Orchestrator Binding
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Orchestrator Binding Model for the
Data Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS).
An Orchestrator Binding transforms a validated Pipeline Plan into an
orchestration-platform-specific representation while preserving the
semantics of the originating Pipeline Contract. The Binding Model
separates pipeline definition from execution technology, enabling a
single Pipeline Contract to target multiple orchestration platforms.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Orchestrator Binding Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- deterministic
- machine readable
- semantically preserving
- portable
- extensible
Bindings SHALL translate Pipeline Plans without changing their declared
meaning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Binding Model
An Orchestrator Binding SHALL consume a validated Pipeline Plan.
A Binding SHALL produce one or more platform-specific orchestration
artifacts.
Bindings MAY target:
- workflow definitions
- deployment manifests
- orchestration APIs
- executable specifications
- implementation-defined artifacts
The produced artifacts are outside the scope of this specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Binding Process
The binding process SHALL include:
- capability verification
- Pipeline Plan translation
- dependency preservation
- scheduling translation
- Quality Gate translation
- Failure Semantics translation
- execution requirement translation
Bindings SHALL fail when mandatory pipeline semantics cannot be
preserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Semantic Preservation
Bindings SHALL preserve:
- pipeline identity
- Pipeline Step identity
- graph topology
- Data Flow
- Control Flow
- Scheduling Intent
- Execution Requirements
- Quality Gates
- Failure Semantics
- Lineage
- contract references
Platform-specific optimizations SHALL NOT alter observable behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Platform-Specific Artifacts
Bindings MAY generate artifacts for any orchestration platform.
Examples include:
- workflow definitions
- deployment descriptors
- scheduler configurations
- orchestration manifests
The format of generated artifacts is implementation defined.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Capability Constraints
Bindings SHALL evaluate the target Orchestrator Capability Model before
translation.
Unsupported mandatory capabilities SHALL prevent successful binding.
Optional capabilities MAY be omitted only when permitted by the
applicable DPCS profile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Validation
Implementations SHALL validate:
- successful capability matching
- translation completeness
- semantic preservation
- extension integrity
Binding failures SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Extensibility
The Orchestrator Binding Model MAY be extended through the DPCS
Extensibility Model.
Extensions SHALL preserve standardized binding semantics and SHALL NOT
redefine mandatory behavior established by this specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- consume a validated Pipeline Plan
- preserve mandatory pipeline semantics
- validate capability compatibility
- reject invalid bindings through standardized Diagnostics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Summary
The Orchestrator Binding Model defines the standardized bridge between
portable Pipeline Plans and implementation-specific orchestration
technologies.
By separating semantic planning from platform translation, DPCS enables
the same Pipeline Contract to be bound to multiple orchestration
environments while preserving identical observable behavior and
governance guarantees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 18 --- Diagnostics
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Diagnostics Model for the Data
Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS).
Diagnostics provide standardized, machine-readable information
describing errors, warnings, informational messages, and other
observations produced during parsing, validation, planning, capability
evaluation, orchestrator binding, and related processing phases.
Diagnostics SHALL enable consistent reporting across independent
implementations without altering the semantic meaning of a Pipeline
Contract.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Diagnostics Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- deterministic
- machine readable
- human readable
- stable
- extensible
Diagnostics SHALL communicate observations without modifying pipeline
semantics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Diagnostic Model
A Diagnostic SHALL represent a single observation.
Each Diagnostic SHALL include:
- diagnostic identifier
- severity
- processing stage
- category
- human-readable message
A Diagnostic MAY additionally include:
- object reference
- source location
- remediation guidance
- related diagnostics
- implementation-specific metadata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Diagnostic Severity
A Diagnostic SHALL declare exactly one severity.
Standard severities are:
- Error
- Warning
- Information
Additional severities MAY be defined through approved extensions.
Severity SHALL describe the significance of the observation and SHALL
NOT determine implementation policy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Processing Stages
Diagnostics MAY be produced during:
- parsing
- Canonical Object Model construction
- validation
- compatibility analysis
- planning
- capability evaluation
- orchestrator binding
- execution analysis
Implementations SHALL identify the originating processing stage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Diagnostic Categories
Diagnostic categories MAY include:
- syntax
- structure
- reference resolution
- compatibility
- scheduling
- execution requirements
- quality gates
- failure semantics
- lineage
- extensions
Categories SHALL support consistent classification across
implementations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Diagnostic Reports
Implementations SHOULD aggregate Diagnostics into Diagnostic Reports.
A Diagnostic Report SHALL preserve:
- processing result
- diagnostic ordering
- associated Pipeline Contract
- implementation metadata where appropriate
Reports SHALL remain stable for equivalent processing inputs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Validation
Implementations SHALL validate:
- diagnostic identifiers
- severity values
- processing stages
- category values
- extension metadata
Invalid diagnostics SHALL themselves produce standardized Diagnostics
where possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Semantic Preservation
Diagnostics SHALL describe observations only.
The generation, ordering, formatting, or transport of Diagnostics SHALL
NOT alter:
- Pipeline Contracts
- Pipeline Plans
- Pipeline Graphs
- Lineage
- execution intent
Diagnostics SHALL remain semantically independent of pipeline behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Extensibility
The Diagnostics Model MAY be extended through the DPCS Extensibility
Model.
Extensions SHALL preserve standardized diagnostic semantics and SHALL
NOT redefine mandatory behavior established by this specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- produce standardized Diagnostics
- preserve diagnostic semantics
- classify diagnostics consistently
- preserve processing stage information
- reject invalid diagnostic structures through standardized
Diagnostics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Summary
The Diagnostics Model provides a standardized framework for
communicating observations throughout the lifecycle of a Pipeline
Contract.
By separating diagnostic reporting from pipeline semantics, DPCS enables
consistent analysis, validation, debugging, governance, and tooling
across heterogeneous implementations while preserving identical
observable pipeline behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 19 --- Compatibility
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Compatibility Model for the Data
Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS).
The Compatibility Model specifies how Pipeline Contracts, Pipeline
Plans, Pipeline Interfaces, Pipeline Steps, and referenced contracts are
evaluated for semantic compatibility across revisions. Compatibility
enables the safe evolution of pipelines while preserving
interoperability and predictable behavior.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Compatibility Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- deterministic
- machine readable
- version aware
- semantically preserving
- extensible
Compatibility SHALL be evaluated independently of implementation
technology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Compatibility Model
Compatibility determines whether two artifacts may interoperate without
violating declared semantics.
Compatibility SHALL be evaluated independently of:
- serialization format
- execution platform
- orchestration technology
- implementation language
Version identifiers SHALL NOT be the sole determinant of compatibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Compatibility Scope
Compatibility MAY be evaluated for:
- Pipeline Contracts
- Pipeline Plans
- Pipeline Interfaces
- Pipeline Steps
- Pipeline Graphs
- Contract References
- Data Contracts
- Transformation Contracts
- Extension-defined artifacts
Each artifact SHALL preserve its own compatibility semantics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Compatibility Categories
Implementations SHOULD distinguish compatibility categories including:
- fully compatible
- backward compatible
- forward compatible
- conditionally compatible
- incompatible
Profiles MAY define additional compatibility categories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Compatibility Evaluation
Compatibility evaluation SHALL consider:
- interface changes
- graph topology
- dependency relationships
- contract references
- execution requirements
- scheduling intent
- quality gates
- failure semantics
- lineage
- extension compatibility
Evaluation SHALL be deterministic for equivalent inputs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Breaking Changes
A change SHALL be considered breaking when it alters mandatory
observable semantics.
Examples MAY include:
- removing required interfaces
- incompatible contract references
- invalid dependency changes
- incompatible Quality Gates
- incompatible Failure Semantics
Implementations SHALL report breaking changes through standardized
Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Validation
Implementations SHALL validate:
- artifact identity
- compatibility declarations
- version declarations
- dependency compatibility
- extension compatibility
Validation failures SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Semantic Preservation
Compatibility analysis SHALL preserve:
- pipeline identity
- interface identity
- graph semantics
- execution intent
- observable behavior
Compatibility evaluation SHALL NOT modify evaluated artifacts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Extensibility
The Compatibility Model MAY be extended through the DPCS Extensibility
Model.
Extensions SHALL preserve standardized compatibility semantics and SHALL
NOT redefine mandatory behavior established by this specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- evaluate compatibility deterministically
- preserve semantic meaning during evaluation
- distinguish compatibility from version identity
- reject invalid compatibility declarations through standardized
Diagnostics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Summary
The Compatibility Model provides a standardized framework for evaluating
the interoperability of Pipeline Contracts and related artifacts across
revisions.
By separating compatibility from version identity and implementation
technology, DPCS enables controlled evolution of portable pipeline
definitions while preserving predictable semantics across independent
implementations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 20 --- Versioning
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Versioning Model for the Data
Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS).
The Versioning Model establishes how Pipeline Contracts, Pipeline Plans,
registries, capability profiles, extensions, and related DPCS artifacts
identify revisions over time. Version identifiers enable controlled
evolution while remaining distinct from compatibility analysis.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Versioning Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- deterministic
- machine readable
- interoperable
- extensible
- stable
Version identifiers SHALL communicate revision identity without altering
the semantic meaning of a Pipeline Contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Versioning Scope
DPCS versioning applies to:
- DPCS specifications
- Pipeline Contracts
- Pipeline Plans
- capability profiles
- registries
- extensions
- orchestrator bindings
- conformance profiles
Each artifact SHALL define its own version independently.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Version Identity
A version identifier uniquely identifies a published revision of an
artifact.
A version identifier SHALL:
- uniquely identify a published revision
- remain stable after publication
- be treated as immutable
Published version identifiers SHALL NOT be reused.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Specification Versions
Every DPCS specification SHALL declare its specification version.
Implementations claiming conformance SHALL identify the DPCS
specification version they implement.
Conformance to one specification version SHALL NOT imply conformance to
another.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Pipeline Contract Versions
Every Pipeline Contract SHOULD declare a contract version.
Pipeline Contract version identifiers SHALL distinguish revisions of the
same logical pipeline.
Pipeline Contract versions SHALL NOT be used as the sole basis for
compatibility evaluation.
Compatibility SHALL be evaluated according to Chapter 19.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Pipeline Plan Versions
A Pipeline Plan MAY declare its own version identifier.
Generation of a new Pipeline Plan SHALL NOT require modification of the
originating Pipeline Contract version unless the contract itself
changes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Registry and Profile Versions
Registries, capability profiles, extension registries, and conformance
profiles SHALL maintain independent version identifiers.
Independent evolution of these artifacts SHALL preserve interoperability
through standardized compatibility rules.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Version Resolution
Implementations SHALL preserve declared version identifiers throughout:
- parsing
- validation
- planning
- capability evaluation
- orchestrator binding
- diagnostics
Version resolution SHALL NOT modify declared pipeline semantics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Validation
Implementations SHALL validate:
- required version declarations
- version identifier syntax
- conflicting version declarations
- profile consistency
Validation failures SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Relationship to Compatibility
Version identity and compatibility are separate concepts.
Two Pipeline Contracts MAY possess different version identifiers while
remaining fully compatible.
Two Pipeline Contracts MAY possess identical version identifiers while
remaining incompatible if declared semantics differ.
Implementations SHALL evaluate compatibility independently of version
identifiers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Extensibility
Extensions SHALL declare their own version identifiers.
Extension versioning SHALL preserve extension identity and SHALL NOT
redefine standardized DPCS version semantics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 13. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- preserve version identifiers
- distinguish version identity from compatibility
- validate version declarations
- reject invalid version metadata through standardized Diagnostics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 14. Summary
The DPCS Versioning Model provides a stable, implementation-independent
framework for identifying revisions of Pipeline Contracts and related
artifacts.
By separating revision identity from semantic compatibility, DPCS
enables controlled evolution of pipeline specifications while preserving
interoperability, portability, and predictable behavior across
independent implementations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 21 --- Extensibility
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Extensibility Model for the Data
Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS).
The Extensibility Model enables organizations, vendors, and communities
to extend DPCS while preserving interoperability, portability, and the
standardized semantics defined by this specification.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Extensibility Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- interoperable
- deterministic
- machine readable
- forward compatible
- semantically preserving
Extensions SHALL augment standardized behavior without redefining it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Extension Model
A DPCS extension SHALL declare:
- extension identifier
- extension namespace
- extension version
- extension owner or authority
- extension scope
- extension semantics
Every extension SHALL have a stable identity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Extension Namespaces
Extensions SHALL be defined within unique namespaces.
Namespace identifiers SHALL uniquely distinguish extension definitions
from standardized DPCS constructs.
Implementations SHALL preserve namespace identity throughout processing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Extension Scope
Extensions MAY define:
- additional metadata
- Pipeline Step types
- capability categories
- Quality Gate categories
- Failure Semantics
- scheduling modes
- orchestrator-specific metadata
- implementation-specific annotations
Extensions SHALL NOT redefine mandatory semantics established by this
specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Unknown Extensions
Implementations SHALL preserve unknown extensions unless prohibited by
an applicable DPCS profile.
Unknown extensions SHALL NOT invalidate an otherwise conforming Pipeline
Contract solely because they are unrecognized.
Implementations MAY emit informational Diagnostics describing
unsupported extensions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Extension Validation
Implementations SHALL validate:
- namespace syntax
- extension identity
- version declarations
- scope declarations
- profile compatibility
Invalid extensions SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Extension Compatibility
Extensions SHALL define their own compatibility and versioning policies.
Extension compatibility SHALL be evaluated independently of core DPCS
compatibility.
Conflicting extensions SHALL be reported through standardized
Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Semantic Preservation
Extensions SHALL preserve:
- standardized Pipeline Contract semantics
- pipeline identity
- dependency relationships
- execution intent
- observable behavior
Extensions SHALL NOT silently change mandatory DPCS behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Registries
Implementations MAY support extension registries.
Registries MAY provide:
- extension discovery
- version metadata
- capability metadata
- documentation references
Registry participation is optional unless required by a DPCS profile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- preserve extension metadata
- preserve namespace identity
- validate extension declarations
- preserve standardized semantics
- reject invalid extension definitions through standardized
Diagnostics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Summary
The Extensibility Model enables DPCS to evolve beyond the core
specification while preserving interoperability and semantic
consistency.
By providing standardized mechanisms for declaring, validating, and
preserving extensions, DPCS supports innovation without compromising the
portability or integrity of Pipeline Contracts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 22 --- Registries
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Registry Model for the Data Pipeline
Contract Standard (DPCS).
Registries provide standardized mechanisms for discovering, identifying,
publishing, and managing reusable DPCS artifacts. Registries enable
interoperability across implementations while preserving stable
identities, semantic consistency, and long-term governance.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Registry Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- machine readable
- deterministic
- discoverable
- interoperable
- extensible
Registries SHALL facilitate artifact discovery without altering the
semantics of registered artifacts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Registry Model
A Registry is a collection of uniquely identified DPCS artifacts.
A Registry MAY contain:
- Pipeline Contracts
- Pipeline Plans
- Orchestrator Capability Profiles
- Extension definitions
- Conformance Profiles
- Binding Profiles
- Implementation-defined artifacts
Registries SHALL preserve the independent identity and version of every
registered artifact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Registry Identity
Every Registry SHALL possess:
- a stable identifier
- a registry version
- ownership or governing authority
- supported DPCS version
- publication metadata
Registry identifiers SHALL remain stable across published revisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Registered Artifacts
Every registered artifact SHALL possess:
- a unique identifier
- an artifact type
- a version identifier
- compatibility metadata
- publication status
Registries SHALL NOT reuse published identifiers for semantically
different artifacts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Registry Operations
Implementations MAY support registry operations including:
- discovery
- lookup
- publication
- update
- deprecation
- retirement
The operational mechanisms are implementation defined and outside the
scope of this specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Registry Validation
Implementations SHALL validate:
- registry identity
- artifact uniqueness
- version declarations
- compatibility metadata
- extension metadata
Validation failures SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Registry Governance
Registries SHOULD define governance procedures for:
- publication
- review
- version management
- deprecation
- retirement
- identifier allocation
Governance policies SHALL preserve long-term interoperability.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Semantic Preservation
Registry participation SHALL preserve:
- artifact identity
- artifact version
- compatibility declarations
- extension metadata
- observable semantics
Registry operations SHALL NOT modify the semantic meaning of registered
artifacts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Extensibility
The Registry Model MAY be extended through the DPCS Extensibility Model.
Extensions SHALL preserve standardized registry semantics and SHALL NOT
redefine mandatory behavior established by this specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- preserve registry identity
- preserve artifact identity
- validate registered artifacts
- preserve semantic integrity
- reject invalid registry metadata through standardized Diagnostics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Summary
The Registry Model provides a standardized framework for discovering,
publishing, and governing reusable DPCS artifacts.
By separating artifact management from pipeline semantics, DPCS enables
interoperable registries that support long-term evolution, reuse, and
governance while preserving the portability and integrity of Pipeline
Contracts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 23 --- Conformance
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Conformance Model for the Data
Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS).
The Conformance Model specifies the minimum requirements that an
implementation SHALL satisfy in order to claim conformance with this
specification. It establishes standardized conformance levels,
validation expectations, and interoperability requirements while
permitting implementation diversity.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Conformance Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- deterministic
- measurable
- interoperable
- machine readable
- extensible
Conformance SHALL measure observable behavior rather than implementation
details.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Conformance Levels
Implementations MAY claim one or more conformance levels.
Standard conformance levels include:
- Parser
- Validator
- Planner
- Capability Evaluator
- Orchestrator Binder
- Registry
- Complete Implementation
Each conformance claim SHALL identify the supported DPCS specification
version.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Parser Conformance
A conforming Parser SHALL:
- accept supported serialization formats
- construct a valid Canonical Object Model
- preserve semantic meaning
- produce standardized Diagnostics for invalid input
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Validator Conformance
A conforming Validator SHALL:
- validate Pipeline Contracts
- validate references
- validate graph integrity
- validate scheduling intent
- validate execution requirements
- validate Quality Gates
- validate Failure Semantics
- produce standardized Diagnostics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Planner Conformance
A conforming Planner SHALL:
- generate a valid Pipeline Plan
- preserve semantic intent
- resolve dependencies
- preserve observable behavior
Planning SHALL NOT modify Pipeline Contract semantics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Orchestrator Conformance
A conforming Binder SHALL:
- evaluate orchestrator capabilities
- preserve Pipeline Plan semantics
- reject unsupported mandatory capabilities
- generate semantically equivalent orchestration artifacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Registry Conformance
A conforming Registry SHALL:
- preserve artifact identity
- preserve version identity
- preserve compatibility metadata
- preserve extension metadata
Registries SHALL NOT modify registered artifacts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Interoperability
Independent conforming implementations SHALL exchange Pipeline Contracts
without altering standardized semantics.
Equivalent Pipeline Contracts SHALL produce semantically equivalent
Canonical Object Models.
Equivalent Pipeline Plans SHALL preserve identical observable behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Conformance Testing
Implementations SHOULD be evaluated using standardized conformance test
suites.
Conformance tests MAY include:
- parser tests
- validation tests
- planning tests
- compatibility tests
- binding tests
- registry tests
- interoperability tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Validation
Implementations SHALL validate conformance claims against the applicable
DPCS specification version.
Invalid conformance claims SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Extensibility
Conformance Profiles MAY define additional requirements beyond this
specification.
Extensions SHALL NOT weaken mandatory DPCS conformance requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 13. Summary
The Conformance Model establishes objective, implementation-independent
requirements for claiming compliance with the Data Pipeline Contract
Standard.
By defining standardized conformance levels and interoperability
expectations, DPCS enables independent implementations to evolve while
maintaining predictable, portable, and semantically equivalent behavior
across the broader ecosystem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 24 --- Security Considerations
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Security Considerations for the Data
Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS).
Security considerations identify the principles and requirements that
implementations SHALL observe when processing, validating, planning,
binding, executing, and governing Pipeline Contracts. DPCS defines
security expectations while remaining independent of any specific
authentication system, authorization model, infrastructure provider, or
orchestration platform.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Security Model SHALL be:
- implementation independent
- defense in depth
- least privilege
- auditable
- portable
- extensible
Security mechanisms SHALL preserve the semantic meaning of Pipeline
Contracts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Scope
Security considerations apply to:
- Pipeline Contracts
- Pipeline Plans
- Contract References
- Registries
- Orchestrator Bindings
- Capability Profiles
- Extensions
- Diagnostics
Implementations SHOULD apply these considerations throughout the DPCS
processing lifecycle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Identity and Authentication
Implementations SHOULD authenticate users, services, and automation
interacting with DPCS artifacts.
The authentication mechanism is outside the scope of this specification.
Authentication SHALL NOT alter Pipeline Contract semantics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Authorization
Implementations SHOULD enforce authorization for:
- creating Pipeline Contracts
- modifying Pipeline Contracts
- publishing artifacts
- registry administration
- orchestrator binding
- execution approval
Authorization policy is implementation defined.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Secrets and Sensitive Information
Pipeline Contracts SHOULD NOT embed secrets directly.
Implementations SHOULD reference external secret-management systems
where credentials are required.
Sensitive information SHALL be protected throughout processing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Integrity
Implementations SHOULD protect the integrity of DPCS artifacts.
Integrity mechanisms MAY include:
- digital signatures
- cryptographic hashes
- immutable storage
- tamper detection
Integrity verification SHALL preserve artifact identity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Isolation
Execution environments SHOULD provide appropriate isolation between
independent pipeline executions.
Isolation MAY be achieved through containers, virtual machines,
processes, or equivalent mechanisms.
The choice of isolation technology is outside the scope of this
specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Auditability
Implementations SHOULD record security-relevant events including:
- publication
- modification
- validation
- orchestrator binding
- execution approval
- registry changes
Audit records SHALL NOT modify standardized pipeline semantics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Validation
Implementations SHALL validate security-related metadata where required
by applicable DPCS profiles.
Security validation failures SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Extensibility
Security extensions MAY be defined through the DPCS Extensibility Model.
Extensions SHALL preserve mandatory DPCS semantics and SHALL NOT weaken
standardized security requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- preserve security metadata
- preserve artifact integrity
- validate required security declarations
- produce standardized Diagnostics for security validation failures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 13. Summary
The Security Considerations defined in this chapter establish
implementation-independent principles for protecting DPCS artifacts
throughout their lifecycle.
By separating security policy from pipeline semantics, DPCS enables
secure, portable, and interoperable implementations while allowing
organizations to adopt authentication, authorization, integrity, and
auditing mechanisms appropriate to their operational environments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 25 --- Governance
## 1. Purpose
This chapter defines the normative Governance Model for the Data
Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS).
The Governance Model establishes the processes, roles, and principles
that guide the evolution, publication, maintenance, and stewardship of
the DPCS specification and its associated artifacts. Governance ensures
that DPCS evolves in a transparent, predictable, and interoperable
manner while preserving long-term stability.
Unless explicitly identified as informative, all requirements in this
chapter are normative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 2. Design Goals
The Governance Model SHALL be:
- transparent
- implementation independent
- consensus driven
- version aware
- interoperable
- extensible
Governance SHALL preserve the integrity and stability of the DPCS
specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 3. Governance Scope
Governance applies to:
- the DPCS specification
- conformance profiles
- capability profiles
- registries
- extension registries
- official examples
- reference implementations
- normative schemas
Each governed artifact SHALL maintain an identified owner or governing
authority.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 4. Roles and Responsibilities
A governance process SHOULD define roles including:
- specification editors
- technical reviewers
- implementers
- registry maintainers
- release managers
- community contributors
The responsibilities of each role SHALL be documented and publicly
available.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 5. Specification Evolution
Changes to the specification SHOULD follow a documented review process.
Proposed changes SHOULD include:
- rationale
- expected impact
- compatibility assessment
- implementation considerations
- migration guidance where applicable
Breaking changes SHOULD be minimized and clearly identified.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 6. Publication
Official releases SHALL identify:
- specification version
- publication date
- change summary
- conformance implications
- compatibility considerations
Published releases SHALL remain immutable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 7. Extension Governance
Extension namespaces SHOULD define their own governance policies.
Extension governance SHALL NOT weaken or redefine mandatory DPCS
semantics.
Conflicting extensions SHOULD be resolved through documented governance
procedures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 8. Registry Governance
Official registries SHOULD establish procedures for:
- artifact publication
- review
- deprecation
- retirement
- identifier allocation
- dispute resolution
Registry governance SHALL preserve artifact identity and
interoperability.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 9. Transparency
Governance decisions SHOULD be publicly documented whenever practical.
Implementations SHOULD be able to determine:
- governing authority
- published versions
- approved extensions
- conformance status
Transparency promotes trust and interoperability across the ecosystem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 10. Validation
Governance metadata SHALL be validated where required by applicable DPCS
profiles.
Invalid governance metadata SHALL produce standardized Diagnostics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 11. Extensibility
Governance processes MAY be extended through documented governance
profiles.
Extensions SHALL preserve mandatory governance requirements established
by this specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 12. Conformance
A conforming implementation SHALL:
- preserve governance metadata
- identify supported specification versions
- preserve registry and extension identities
- produce standardized Diagnostics for invalid governance declarations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## 13. Summary
The Governance Model provides a stable framework for the stewardship and
long-term evolution of the Data Pipeline Contract Standard.
By defining transparent processes for specification maintenance,
publication, registry management, and extension oversight, DPCS promotes
a healthy ecosystem in which independent implementations can evolve
while preserving interoperability, portability, and semantic
consistency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Chapter 26 --- Appendices
## 1. Purpose
This chapter contains informative appendices that support implementation
of the Data Pipeline Contract Standard (DPCS). Unless explicitly stated
otherwise, the material in this chapter is informative and does not
introduce additional normative requirements beyond those defined in
Chapters 1--25.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## Appendix A --- Glossary
**Artifact** --- A versioned object defined or referenced by DPCS.
**Canonical Object Model (COM)** --- The implementation-independent
in-memory representation of a Pipeline Contract.
**Contract Reference** --- A reference to an external contract such as
an ODCS Data Contract, DTCS Transformation Contract, or another DPCS
Pipeline Contract.
**Orchestrator Binding** --- The translation of a validated Pipeline
Plan into platform-specific orchestration artifacts.
**Pipeline Contract** --- The normative declaration describing a
pipeline.
**Pipeline Plan** --- The canonical intermediate representation produced
from a validated Pipeline Contract.
**Pipeline Step** --- A logical unit of work within a Pipeline Contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## Appendix B --- Example Pipeline Contract (YAML)
``` yaml
dpcsVersion: "1.0.0"
id: "customer-pipeline"
version: "1.0.0"
inputs:
- id: customer_raw
contractRef: contracts/customer_raw.odcs.yaml
steps:
- id: normalize
transformRef: transforms/normalize.dtcs.yaml
outputs:
- id: customer_clean
contractRef: contracts/customer_clean.odcs.yaml
```
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## Appendix C --- Processing Lifecycle
``` text
Pipeline Contract
│
▼
Canonical Object Model
│
▼
Validation
│
▼
Pipeline Plan
│
▼
Capability Evaluation
│
▼
Orchestrator Binding
│
▼
Execution Runtime
```
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## Appendix D --- Recommended Repository Layout
``` text
spec/
schemas/
examples/
tests/
docs/
```
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## Appendix E --- Conformance Test Areas
Recommended conformance suites include:
- Parser
- Canonical Object Model
- Validation
- Data Flow
- Control Flow
- Planning
- Capability Evaluation
- Orchestrator Binding
- Diagnostics
- Compatibility
- Versioning
- Registries
- Extensions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## Appendix F --- Relationship to Companion Standards
``` text
ODCS
(Data Contracts)
│
▼
DTCS
(Transformation Contracts)
│
▼
DPCS
(Pipeline Contracts)
│
▼
Execution Platforms
```
ODCS defines datasets.
DTCS defines transformations.
DPCS defines pipeline composition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## Appendix G --- Future Directions
Potential future work includes:
- Standardized Pipeline Registry APIs
- Portable execution profiles
- Digital signatures
- Provenance interchange formats
- Pipeline package formats
- Additional orchestrator bindings
- Formal semantic test suites
------------------------------------------------------------------------
## Summary
These appendices provide reference material, examples, architectural
diagrams, terminology, and implementation guidance intended to help
implementers build interoperable DPCS tooling while remaining faithful
to the normative requirements established throughout this specification.