SSSOM provenance for cross-context mappings

Context and Problem Statement

A SKOS correspondence tells a consumer how two meanings relate. It does not by itself identify the versions examined, the matching process or the date of the decision. Free-text notes and generic production provenance cannot provide a consistent, exchangeable mapping record. Internal mappings need this evidence as much as mappings to external vocabularies.

Considered Options

• Add a bounded SSSOM profile over retained SKOS mapping statements.
• Keep narrative notes as the only mapping evidence.
• Invent a mapping vocabulary from generic provenance annotations.

Decision Outcome

Adopt SSSOM 1.0 as additive mapping metadata. SKOS remains the correspondence predicate layer. SEMAPV supplies matching-process values, not a rival set of mapping attributes. Store named RDF 1.2 reifiers under ODR-0058.

Consequences

• Good, because existing SKOS queries and evidence-aware consumers can coexist.
• Good, because mapping decisions carry explicit source and release boundaries.
• Bad, because canonical storage needs demonstrated RDF 1.2 triple-term support.
• Neutral, because generic activity provenance remains a separate concern.

Confirmation

This is the required method, not an assertion of existing OPDA mapping coverage. Implementation must demonstrate retained assertions, reifier identity, all required slots, negative fixtures, version pinning and deterministic exports. Empty mapping sets do not defer the method or constitute positive conformance evidence.

Rules

R1: Preserve the correspondence

Retain every approved skos:exactMatch, skos:closeMatch, skos:broadMatch, skos:narrowMatch or skos:relatedMatch assertion. Its SSSOM record supplements it; a reified description alone is not an assertion. Predicate choice must follow ODR-0059, not a confidence threshold.

R2: Canonical vocabulary and local profile

Reference https://w3id.org/sssom/ and https://w3id.org/semapv/ directly, without owl:imports. Local SHACL validates the profile. Its strengthened requirements below are OPDA requirements, not misstatements of SSSOM’s general cardinalities.

R3: Mapping-record contract

Missing required structure, invalid cardinalities, out-of-range confidence and an invalid modifier are violations. Missing confidence or tool metadata is informational, not a reason to fabricate values. subject_id, predicate_id and object_id are SSSOM model slots; do not invent same-named canonical RDF predicates. The released OWL binding uses owl:annotatedSource, owl:annotatedProperty and owl:annotatedTarget; our canonical carrier uses the triple term instead.

A source IRI names the vocabulary or identifier system, not a bounded-context label and not necessarily an endpoint’s lexical namespace. Within strategic context-map applicability it must resolve to the governed identifier-system object required by ODR-0064.

The admitted SEMAPV process values are MappingReview, ManualMappingCuration, LogicalReasoning, LexicalMatching, CompositeMatching, UnspecifiedMatching, SemanticSimilarityThresholdMatching, LexicalSimilarityThresholdMatching, MappingChaining, MappingInversion, StructuralMatching, InstanceBasedMatching and BackgroundKnowledgeBasedMatching, under the canonical SEMAPV namespace.

The profile excludes sssom:author_id, including from shapes and derived exports. This preserves the 30 August amendment: the standard’s optional author slot still exists, but the selected profile does not invent an agent merely to populate it. Human accountability is not removed. Tool names are not substitute authors or PROV agents. Endpoint labels, similarity scores, reviewer metadata, licence, tool versions and other unselected slots must not be silently invented or presented as asserted.

R4: Named statement identity

Every mapping has a stable named reifier IRI and exactly one rdf:reifies arc to its statement. Blank-node reifiers and independent hand-edited duplicate carriers are not the canonical form. Keep the SKOS assertion alongside the reifier. OWL annotation-axiom and TSV representations are generated views.

R5: Mapping confidence is not production provenance

Use sssom:confidence for mapping confidence. A generic local extraction-confidence property must not duplicate it. Category 9 may separately describe the production activity, its agents and derivations. Matching justification classifies the process; it does not identify a software agent or certify truth.

R6: One authoritative representation

Canonical Turtle is the input. .sssom.tsv may support review or interchange but must be regenerable, not a second committed input. Exporters preserve endpoint identity, source versions, release, date, justification and permitted optional fields.

R7: Concern boundary

Endpoints, correspondence, matching process and mapping curation belong in Category 8. How an artefact was produced belongs in Category 9. Neither profile is a shortcut around the other’s validation or an excuse to apply generic lineage to strategic records whose history is specifically restricted.

More Information

• SSSOM
• SEMAPV
• Source-method record: ODR-0087, revision 67174057e6384b79d0b28b7736fe70a66e112895.

Amendments

• 2026-09-05 — OPDA adaptation. Preserves the active 25 and 30 August profile corrections, named-carrier amendment and Category 8/9 separation. Source votes, migration receipts and runtime installation claims are not OPDA evidence.