Mapping records: correspondence with an inspectable argument

A plausible match is the start of a question

Similar labels, shared identifiers and nearby graph structures can reveal useful candidates for comparison. They do not choose the final mapping predicate. Read both definitions, examine their identity criteria and compare hard cases. Ask whether the two terms classify the same things, overlapping things, a broader and narrower population, or related but fundamentally different things.

In the Harbour Court illustration, a title record and building share an address. That is not evidence for making the resources owl:sameAs, nor for declaring the classes equivalent. Their relationship should be modelled as a relationship. A high lexical similarity score cannot repair a mismatch in what the terms identify.

The OPDA identity protocol treats business keys as evidence rather than identity criteria. Its gates are ordered: a positive equivalence warrant is not produced by adding together a collection of weak similarities, and rigidity or coherence checks can veto a candidate without establishing identity themselves. Under uncertainty at the equivalence tier, retain a weaker justified correspondence or keep the terms separate.

Choose the SKOS predicate for its consequences

The selected cross-context mapping layer uses skos:exactMatch, skos:closeMatch, skos:broadMatch, skos:narrowMatch and skos:relatedMatch. These are not five confidence bands. They express different kinds of conceptual correspondence.

An exact match has stronger consequences than a close match. In particular, exactMatch is transitive, while closeMatch is not. If A exactly matches B and B exactly matches C, the chain matters for A and C; a chain of close matches does not establish the corresponding direct close match. A broader mapping has an orientation that must remain visible when a user reads the other side. SKOS Reference §10 defines these properties and their interactions.

SKOS mapping is not OWL identity. It does not merge the Harbour Court building with a title record, and it does not justify automatically substituting the properties of one class for another. Equally, calling mappings “annotations” must not imply that SKOS has no entailments: symmetric, transitive and subproperty consequences can affect a query’s results.

SSSOM records the particular mapping assertion

The OPDA method profiles SSSOM 1.0 as a wrapper over the retained SKOS assertion. The mapping statement remains available to consumers interested only in correspondence. The named record makes the exact statement inspectable together with its metadata. It is not a replacement predicate or a second, independently edited mapping.

The selected profile requires both endpoint sources, a pinned version for each, the identifier of the versioned mapping-set release, a mapping date and a matching-process justification. A source means the vocabulary or identifier system supplying the endpoint identifier. It is not merely the label of a bounded context and need not be a lexical prefix of the endpoint IRI.

SEMAPV supplies classes describing matching processes, such as manual curation, lexical matching, logical reasoning or composite matching, as values of sssom:mapping_justification. It does not add a parallel collection of endpoint, confidence and author fields. The process term explains how the correspondence was established; the comment and evidence must still explain why it is appropriate.

Confidence is optional in this profile and is constrained when supplied. Do not display a missing confidence value as an asserted score. Similarity and curator confidence are also different measurements. A label-similarity algorithm’s number should not be relabelled as a probability that a semantic identity claim is correct.

Distinguish standard capabilities from the selected profile

SSSOM offers more fields than this method adopts. The adopted 30 August amendment excludes mapping author_id from its active profile; do not fabricate an author resource to fill it. The optional mapping_tool value names a tool or algorithm and is not a PROV SoftwareAgent relationship. A separately modelled production activity can have its own provenance without altering the mapping profile.

The selected confidence binding is xsd:double between 0 and 1. If used, predicate_modifier admits only Not under SSSOM 1.0. Such a modifier must be interpreted and displayed with the record; it is not permission to export an unqualified positive assertion that says the opposite. Do not invent negative records merely because no positive mapping was found.

Referencing canonical vocabulary terms does not imply importing an entire ontology. The standards receipt records terms and profile decisions. Pin the source versions actually compared and regenerate projections from the authoritative assertion so that a corrected predicate cannot leave stale exports behind.

Failure case: yesterday’s exact match survives today’s changed definition

Suppose a source broadens “inspection report” to include reports about multiple assets. An older receiving definition assumes one inspection subject. A mapping without source versions still looks exact to a consumer, although the compared meanings have changed. The failure is not repaired by changing the label or increasing a confidence score.

Pinned versions identify the decision that needs review. Recheck the original hard cases and new counterexamples, revise the mapping if warranted, and issue a new mapping-set release. Preserve the distinction between historical evidence and the current correspondence. A missing or rejected mapping is an honest outcome.

For strategic applicability, use the context-map record to point at this exact mapping record, not a whole mapping set.

Related, denied and unreviewed are different verdicts

The mapping register records what the reviewer actually concluded. ODR-0059 R6 distinguishes a positive association, denial of a named predicate and a negative/unrelated decision. Absence of a triple says none of those things by itself. Record denied candidates that were genuinely examined, not every possible pair in the model.

A negated record identifies the statement being denied. Do not add or export its unqualified positive triple. In contrast, the approved positive record above retains the SKOS assertion alongside its reifier. The selected modifier must survive any derived view; otherwise a consumer receives the opposite meaning. Keep a broad separation decision and its rationale distinct from denial of one particular predicate.

Inspect the third concept before trusting a chain

Consider three fictional vocabulary concepts: A, “Inspection report”; B, “Assessment report”; and C, “Valuation opinion”. A curator proposes A skos:exactMatch B and B skos:exactMatch C. Because exactMatch is transitive, the two edges also commit to the A–C exact correspondence. The proposed graph must be reviewed for that consequence, not treated as two unrelated pairwise scores.

Under ODR-0059 R5, every exact-match chain of length two or more requires mandatory human reinspection. Suppose an inspection report at Harbour Court records condition but contains no valuation opinion, while C's definition requires one. That counterexample challenges the chain's claimed interchangeability. Inspect both edges and their source versions; the convenient bridging label B may have hidden two meanings.

Lowering the confidence on B–C from 0.95 to 0.55 leaves skos:exactMatch unchanged. Where justified, revise the predicate to close or associative correspondence; otherwise retract the proposed edge or leave the review unresolved. Do not choose a weaker predicate merely to keep the diagram connected. A chain of close matches does not entitle the reviewer to invent a direct A–C close match.

Exercise change in both directions

Use the existing context boundaries and the exact mapping applicability recorded in context-map records. The examples below are illustrative entries in a specification mapping register, not appointments of real reviewers, adopted mappings or a running curation service.

Other explicit reopening triggers in ODR-0059 R8 include a new context, source-version change, a newly satisfiable link key, rigidity retyping and coherence regression. A trigger makes the candidate eligible for renewed review; it does not supply the positive equivalence warrant. Re-run the scoped two-context coherence check where required, including on shared-meaning admission.

For the exercise, explain what changes and what stays fixed. In the first case the evidence defeats the accepted warrant even if the label is unchanged. In the second, changed evidence removes an earlier obstacle but does not prove criterion-sameness. Harbour Court's unresolved subdivision identity remains unresolved; this mapping review cannot settle it by matching an address.

Make the decision history reviewable in the specification

ODR-0059 R11 requires versioned evidence, staleness signals, owners and exit gates across a four-stage curation lifecycle. The following is a worked way to organise the register, not a claim that OPDA has approved these stage names or implemented the workflow. A local operating claim needs its own named owners and adopted gates.

1. Candidate recorded. A proposer identifies the exact endpoints, compared versions and reason to inspect them. Exit only with enough evidence to pose the mapping question; do not mark a suggestion accepted.
2. Evidence reviewed. The affected semantic owners inspect definitions, predicate warrant, hard cases and required coherence checks. Record held disagreement. Exit with a reasoned verdict or an explicit unresolved outcome.
3. Decision recorded. The responsible mapping authority records the verdict, evidence, date, versioned mapping set and any superseded decision. Validate required SSSOM fields and predicate/justification coherence; preserve blocking versus advisory findings.
4. Change reviewed. A named steward records staleness signals and reopening/retraction triggers against the relevant versions. A changed source or failed key returns the affected candidate to review; unchanged labels cannot close the issue.

Keep these responsibilities in the specification's mapping register without inventing excluded SSSOM fields such as a mandatory author slot. Human accountability is still necessary, but a tool name is not a reviewer. Report reopened separations that later gain support as well as retracted false positives; a process that never revisits denials can miss useful interoperability.

Source contract

Required method: OPDA ODR-0051, ODR-0056 R1–R5 as amended 30 August 2026, ODR-0058’s named RDF 1.2 reifier/export contract, and ODR-0059’s accepted ordered identity gates and R11 version discipline. ODR-0059’s separately labelled proposed round-two refinement is not silently promoted by its accepted document header.

Adoption provenance: upstream revision 67174057e6384b79d0b28b7736fe70a66e112895, 5 September 2026. SEMAPV’s published term definitions supply the precise justification IRIs. See standards and decisions for local adoption and provenance. A required mapping-record method does not imply that today’s candidate contains reviewed mappings.