SIE.Preface:7 - Architectural Rationale
The language is organized around the results that make a receiving use possible. Source recovery, relation truth, bounded identity, claim composition, executable semantics, realization, interface, and validation can fail independently and return to different owners. Keeping their Methods directly accessible permits a useful early stop and replacement of one contribution without inventing a new lifecycle for the entire arrangement.
| Serious alternative | When its contribution is enough | Why SIE keeps a different boundary for the combined use |
|---|---|---|
| Use FPF and the owning engineering, data, MDM, or application practice directly | One exact representation, domain identity, configuration, pipeline, or decision result closes the question. | A recurring cross-source interface question still needs source-qualified correspondences, mappings, interpretation, and receiving-use validation joined together. SIE supplies that remainder and returns the other results to their owners. |
| Treat ontology engineering as the whole practice | The missing result is a model that expresses the required distinctions and questions. | An adequate existing model can support integration without a new ontology. Model construction alone does not supply identity dispositions, claim composition, executable mappings, or a usable interface. SIE.3 supplies that distinct model result. |
| Make a materialized knowledge graph the standard result | Permitted copying, a suitable refresh and correction arrangement, and reproducible queries meet the contract. | A graph is one realization. The live-provider case forbids replication, and useful incompatibility must remain expressible. Conversely, live federation is unsuitable when its access, availability, or repeatability cannot meet the use. |
| Use one canonical enterprise model and master identity | A responsible domain or MDM authority has supplied a bounded common model, identity, or authoritative-value result that the use can rely on. | Integration alone cannot grant that authority or erase local grains, versions, claims, and incompatible meanings. SIE preserves the supplied result’s scope and the source identifiers that make correction possible. |
| Collapse the work into one prescribed lifecycle | A local team may use a repeatable plan for a recurring, stable situation. | A direct identity question, realization decision, or validation failure has different inputs and stops. The pattern language preserves those entries and conditional result relations; the local plan remains one use of it. |
| Separate Ontology Engineering, Knowledge Graph Engineering, and Semantic Integration into independent languages | A substantially independent first use, result chain, practitioner community, and source-refresh need would justify reconsidering the split. | The represented uses share receiving contracts, correspondence and mapping work, authority boundaries, and whole-use validation. A different technology or familiar professional name alone does not separate that work. |
The complete repertoire joins model adequacy, semantic interfaces, changed reliance, and commons maintenance through their actual results. Completing a small model or interface question remains useful on its own. A continuing service requires its operational results, and a commons requires the rights and dependencies of its actual users.
SIE.Preface:7.1 - Source contributions behind the arrangement
The source-use account gives the qualified source cut and its dates. The shared architecture combines contributions that answer different questions; it does not treat a standard or tool family as a complete integration Method.
Terminology and registry practice, including ISO 704:2022 and ISO/IEC 11179-3:2023, makes source objects, concepts, definitions, designations, items, and versions distinguishable. SIE.2 adapts that contribution into the smallest inventory needed by the receiver. This improves on schema inspection plus informal recollection: a mapping can point to the operative definition and edition. It still cannot infer a cross-source relation from a registry entry. FPF’s source-local meaning and direct Bridge distinctions supply the separate generic questions used by SIE.2 and SIE.4.
SKOS supplies different correspondence forms; SSSOM 1.0 makes endpoints, predicates, justification, provenance, and source versions inspectable. OAEI 2025 contributes task-dependent alignment evidence. In SIE.4, SoTA-Echoing, SIE.4 uses those contributions to separate candidate generation, direct relation judgment, and a receiving-use qualification. A two-column crosswalk or score can help find a candidate, but the chosen relation, permitted loss, and counterexamples determine whether it can support this transformation. A new endpoint sense or defeating counterexample reopens that row.
ISO 8000-115:2024 contributes identifier ownership, semantics, restrictions, and resolution inputs within its declared scope. PROV-O supplies distinctions for derivation, attribution, revision, specialization, and alternate descriptions. SIE.5 and SIE.6 adapt these into two different results: an identity disposition and a source-qualified claim composition. A merged key cannot replace the first, and provenance cannot settle the second’s truth or authority. The SEMI and GS1 traceability sources in SIE.5, SoTA-Echoing make grain, issuer, and event-time failures concrete; they do not authorize a recall or establish an enterprise master identity.
R2RML and QVT 1.3 contribute bounded declarative mapping and transformation forms. The Ontop line demonstrates a virtual realization over mappings. SIE.7 and SIE.8 adapt those contributions into an independently inspectable semantic rule and a choice among whole arrangements. This costs explicit specification and comparison, but it permits an implementation to change while preserving the required behavior. Neither RDF nor MOF nor a graph store is required. Failure of a mapping premise returns to the semantic rule; an implementation discrepancy returns to its implementer.
SHACL supplies declared graph-constraint tests. DQV and the data-quality sources in SIE.10, SoTA-Echoing contribute dimensions, measurements, and process questions. SIE.10 retains their distinct evidence roles and adds the representative receiving-use replay. A passing shape can coexist with the wrong identity or a concealed stale branch. The arrangement therefore uses categorical pass, narrow, unresolved, and stop results under the contract, rather than a compensating overall score. Evidence for implementation and operation remains necessary when the conclusion relies on actual service behavior.
LOT contributes ontology requirements, development, publication, and maintenance to SIE.3. Sufficient model reuse remains a completed result. LOT4KG distinguishes ontology work from graph construction and relates changes to dependent mappings, constraints, and validation; SIE.11 uses those relationships for graph realizations. OBO Foundry principles contribute scoped module, term-stability, maintenance, and communication practices to SIE.12, with their community-specific rules qualified in the source account.
Reconsider the affected choice when a simpler qualified contribution supplies the same result, a represented use repeatedly needs a missing Method, or a source or case defeats a relied-on boundary. When the need is a reusable Method repertoire, ME.2 returns inspectable alternatives, source contributions, relations, and gaps for that comparison; the integration-specific question stays in SIE. A substantially independent practice remainder can reopen the field split described above.