F.0.2:11 - SoTA-Echoing
| Current practice line and sources | Adopted or adapted move | Effect in F.0.2 | Limit kept visible |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ontology matching: OAEI 2025 campaign and results; Giglou et al., LLMs4OM (2024, arXiv:2404.10317); Qiang et al., OAEI-LLM (2024, arXiv:2409.14038) and its 2025 TBox extension | Adopt inspectable candidate correspondences, source-local identity, benchmark or expert checking, and an explicit missing-mapping boundary. | Correspondence proposals enter the comparison, and a missing load-bearing source can lead to an unresolved-inquiry claim. | Inspect the source meanings and intended use behind a proposed match; benchmark correspondence quality leaves that conceptual comparison to the author. |
| Ontology interoperability engineering: Qiang, An Ecosystem for Ontology Interoperability (2025, arXiv:2507.12311) | Adapt the separation among ontology design, matching, versioning, and deployment validation. | Alignment, receiving-ontology design, revision, and later use remain separate moves and claims. | The proposed lifecycle concerns data integration; applying its moves to framework authoring requires a correspondence between the actual tasks and receiving decisions. |
| Theory synthesis: Jaakkola, Designing conceptual articles: four approaches (2020, DOI 10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0); Okoli, Developing Theory from Literature Reviews with Theoretical Concept Synthesis (2022, DOI 10.2139/ssrn.3452134) | Adopt one synthesis question, explicit source roles, comparison of concepts, relations, explanations, and contexts, and a positive integrated contribution rather than a summary or gap list. | The bounded method returns a practitioner-facing provisional contribution when the comparison warrants one. | These methods organize conceptual-article contributions. A practitioner-facing adaptation must also supply the action and first useful result for the receiving problem. |
| Framework synthesis: Carroll et al., Best fit framework synthesis: refining the method (2013, DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-13-37); Brunton, Oliver, and Thomas, Innovations in framework synthesis as a systematic review method (2020, DOI 10.1002/jrsm.1399) | Adapt use of a receiving framework together with explicit treatment of non-fit and source heterogeneity. | Rival explanations, contrast, non-fit, and revision of the receiving framework remain live in the Solution. | Preserve and examine data that do not fit the initial framework; that non-fit may require changing the proposed explanation. |
For the authoring question in :5.1, a correspondence-only answer can identify similar terms but leaves the outside-before-inside contribution undecided. A full G.2 pack adds a reusable corpus, claim sheets, inventories, alignments and downstream handoffs; these become worth their cost when later questions need that broader result. The bounded method instead retains source-local claims, compares the decision-changing difference and produces one result for the named decision.
Jaakkola’s question and source-role discipline, Okoli’s extraction and iterative synthesis, and Carroll–Brunton’s treatment of non-fit inform steps 1–5 of that bounded route. These contributions organize the comparison; the particular working case selects what can be integrated and what must remain different. The accepted trade-off is limited coverage for a smaller first result. Reopen the source cut when a known rival or counterexample can change that result, and open G.2 when the receiving work needs its broader reusable outputs.