Merge / Delegation of Cloud Infrastructure terms to GovStack's common terminology

[basicavisual]

@garloff submitted a CR GovStackWorkingGroup/bb-cloud-infrastructure-hosting#3 that resulted in a patch release of Cloud Infrastructure BB spec. While doing that I noticed Cloud BB has the following terms that either can be incorporated to the common govstack terminology (CT) or other specs, or that the common terminology could delegate to the cloud BB:

Term/Link	Observation or Actionable
Container	Is available on CT with different wording. Decide final definition and who owns it.
Containerization	The container and deployment-readiness is referred to by govstack-cfr-deployment 2.0.0 and obviously a subject matter of the Cloud BB. Shall this term be included as a hyperlink in the common terminology to direct it to the Cloud BB?
Federation	Federation is referred at Federation and Data Exchange Requirements of the GovStack Architecture. It is also heavily used on Identity BB, and even when not explicitly referred at, it is a foundational concept of IM BB. How should this term be agreed upon and referred back at the different specifications that use the concept?
IAM (Identity and Access Management)	Identity BB doesn't textually make use of IAM, but as a BB, it is centered around the entire concept of it. How can other BBs making use of the Identity concept refer back to it from their specification?
Multi-tenancy	This feature is not currently part of CFR-Arch, but could be considered for it, or for the terminology so other BB can make use of it.
Quota	Quota as a concept is part of https://govstack.gitbook.io/cfr-architecture/develop/5-cross-cutting-requirements/6.5-security#id-10-implement-secure-api-gateways-recommended-extensible. It could be included on common terminology and referred back to it in Cloud or Viceversa.
UUID	UUIDs are used by a lot of BBs on their Data Structures or Service APIs. They could be included in common terminology.
Virtual Machines as well as Virtualization	Both could be subject to be on common terminology as referred by CFR-Deployment

A second thing to decide how are terminologies linked and owned. One option would be to keep the definition in one place, and have external specifications link back to it. Another option would be to duplicate the definition on each text, but always followed by a call-out of where is it originally defined. I am suggested these two options so that change management is traceable, so that whenever a WG updates their spec they know were their linked definition is stored and be able to mantain the changes over time.