Experiment ID: CC-EXP-C04-03

Version: 0.1

Date: 19 September 2026

Candidate: QMAP — Qualified Mapping Assertion Profile

Standing: INTERNAL — EXECUTED SEMANTIC STABILITY / HARD COUNTEREXAMPLE TEST. NO COMMONS ADMISSION OR PUBLICATION AUTHORISED.

Question

Does QMAP remain coherent when mappings are many-to-many, temporal, conditional, inferred, approximate, jurisdiction-specific, version-sensitive, recursive or transformational?

Executive result

SEMANTIC STABILITY PASS WITH THREE MATERIAL REFINEMENTS.

QMAP survives all hard cases if:

1. the atomic semantic unit is a Mapping Assertion, not a mapping table/edge set;
2. relation semantics and mapping assertion standing are separate;
3. transformation is not treated as mapping unless a distinct source→target relation assertion is also made.

Atomic unit

A Mapping Assertion states:

For a declared purpose and scope, Source S bears Relation R to Target T, asserted/derived under declared provenance and applicable qualification.

Many-to-many mappings are represented as sets of atomic assertions or an explicitly defined grouped mapping construct referencing atomic assertions.

Do not hide semantics inside a spreadsheet row group.

HT01 — Changing source identity

Source identifier is replaced/merged.

Preserve original assertion and source identity/version.

Create new assertion or explicit source-identity/supersession relation.

Do not silently retarget historical mapping.

PASS.

HT02 — Many-to-many mapping

Sources A/B map to targets X/Y.

A single undifferentiated n:m edge is ambiguous.

Use atomic assertions unless the relation itself is explicitly collective, e.g. the set {A,B} as a defined source resource maps to {X,Y}.

PASS WITH ATOMICITY REFINEMENT.

HT03 — Conditional mapping

A maps to B only when product type=P and jurisdiction=AU.

Scope/applicability is material and therefore required.

Without condition, assertion is misleading.

PASS.

HT04 — Temporal mapping

A maps to B until 30 June, then C.

Preserve effective intervals and supersession.

Historical mappings remain reconstructable.

PASS.

HT05 — Conflicting mappings

Mapper 1 asserts exact relation; Mapper 2 asserts approximate relation.

Preserve both assertion identities/provenance/standing and explicit conflict if known.

QMAP does not decide which is correct.

PASS.

HT06 — Mapping of mappings

Institution B maps Customer Mapping M1 to Framework Crosswalk M2.

Treat mapping assertions as first-class resources that can themselves be source/target of another qualified assertion.

Do not collapse nested provenance.

PASS.

HT07 — Inferred mapping

Reasoner derives A relation B.

Record:

• relation;
• inference rule/logic/provenance;
• derived assertion standing;
• source premises where recoverable.

Derived ≠ accepted.

PASS.

HT08 — Probabilistic/approximate mapping

Model says A likely corresponds to B with 0.72 score.

Do not encode probability as relation strength unless relation vocabulary defines it.

Represent:

• relation candidate/assertion;
• qualification/confidence separately;
• provenance/model/version.

Confidence ≠ semantic relation.

PASS WITH QUALIFICATION REFINEMENT.

HT09 — Jurisdiction-specific mapping

Reference term A maps to customer term B in AU but C in US.

Jurisdiction is scope/applicability, not a new universal relation.

Both mappings can coexist.

PASS.

HT10 — Source-version invalidation

Framework v2 changes meaning of A.

Mappings against v1 remain historical.

Mappings against v2 require reassessment/new assertion.

Do not auto-carry mappings across semantic version changes.

PASS.

HT11 — Target does not yet exist

Design maps current concept A to proposed future target B.

Permitted if target identity is a valid proposed resource and its standing is explicit.

QMAP does not require target to be implemented.

PASS.

HT12 — Asymmetric mapping

A broad-matches B does not mean B broad-matches A.

Relation semantics govern direction/inverse, not QMAP.

PASS.

HT13 — Transformation rather than mapping

Transformation function converts schema A data into schema B.

The transformation artefact/process is not itself the semantic mapping.

Possible separate assertions:

• field A maps to field B;
• transformation T implements/uses those mapping assertions;
• output was generated from input through T.

PASS WITH MATERIAL BOUNDARY.

HT14 — Lossy transformation

A→B drops information.

Mapping assertion must not imply semantic equivalence.

Transformation characteristics belong to transformation/process evidence.

PASS.

HT15 — Composite equivalence

Two source fields together correspond to one target field.

Define the source composite/set as an identifiable resource or use a grouped mapping construct with explicit semantics.

Do not pretend each field individually equals target.

PASS.

HT16 — Mapping accepted for analytics but not operations

Same mapping is approved for reporting but prohibited for runtime decisioning.

Mapping purpose/applicability/acceptance standing distinguishes the uses.

STRONG PASS — validates mandatory purpose.

HT17 — Cross-language mapping with cultural nuance

Term A has no exact equivalent in language/community B.

Use approximate/domain relation if justified; preserve scope/community/context and avoid forced equivalence.

PASS.

HT18 — Authority-sensitive mapping

External authority term maps to enterprise representation.

Mapping does not transfer the source authority to target representation.

Authority relationship requires separate applicable basis.

PASS — Non-Promotion Rule.

Material refinement 1 — Mapping Assertion identity

Every material mapping assertion needs its own identity if it must be:

• accepted/rejected;
• versioned;
• conflicted;
• superseded;
• cited;
• revalidated;
• mapped itself.

Therefore QMAP is explicitly a first-class assertion profile.

Material refinement 2 — Relation ≠ qualification

Keep separate:

relation semantics — exact/close/broad/supports/etc.

from

assertion qualification — confidence, acceptance, applicability, evidence quality.

Do not invent “weak exactMatch” by mixing dimensions.

Material refinement 3 — Mapping ≠ transformation

A mapping assertion describes a semantic relationship.

A transformation performs/converts/derives something.

A transformation may implement or rely on mappings but is a separate activity/process with provenance.

Minimum QMAP after test

Required

1. mapping_assertion_id
2. source_ref
3. target_ref
4. relation_ref
5. mapping_purpose
6. assertion_provenance

Required when material

1. source/target version
2. source/target lens/type
3. scope/applicability
4. effective time

Optional/linked

1. evidence/rationale
2. acceptance/standing
3. confidence/qualification
4. conflict refs
5. supersession
6. revalidation trigger
7. derivation/inference rule
8. grouping/composite ref

Core invariants

1. Source/target retain independent identity.
2. Mapping Assertion is first-class.
3. Relation semantics are explicit.
4. Purpose is mandatory.
5. Provenance is mandatory.
6. Relation ≠ confidence/qualification.
7. Mapping existence ≠ acceptance.
8. Mapping ≠ equivalence by default.
9. Mapping ≠ conformance.
10. Mapping ≠ authority.
11. Mapping ≠ runtime permission.
12. Mapping ≠ transformation.
13. Many-to-many semantics must be decomposed or explicitly grouped.
14. Historical/superseded mappings remain reconstructable.
15. Conflicting mappings may coexist.
16. Derived mappings preserve derivation.
17. Version changes do not silently inherit mapping standing.
18. Mapping scope can be jurisdiction/community/purpose-specific.

Relationship to RRAP

A Mapping Assertion may itself be a representation/evidence entity and can receive RRAP roles where useful.

Example:

• vendor-published crosswalk may be REFERENCE;
• customer-accepted mapping design may be DESIGNED;
• configured mapping may be IMPLEMENTED;
• observed transformation behaviour may be OBSERVED.

But QMAP and RRAP remain independent profiles.

Relationship to transformation/provenance

Use PROV-compatible activity/derivation semantics for transformation.

QMAP can point to transformation evidence but should not model execution.

Hostile result

18/18 hard cases survive.

No case required:

• universal relation vocabulary;
• global mapping authority;
• forced equivalence;
• single mapping truth;
• embedding transformation logic in QMAP.

Naming result

Qualified Mapping Assertion Profile (QMAP) remains semantically appropriate.

Guardrail:

“Qualified” means explicitly contextualised/provenanced, not quality-approved.

Stage result

SEMANTIC STABILITY PASS.

QMAP is now stable enough for a non-machine-readable Candidate Specification v0.1.

Next

Draft QMAP Candidate Specification with:

• purpose/scope/non-scope;
• Mapping Assertion definition;
• required/conditional qualifiers;
• invariants;
• relation-selection guidance;
• 8 examples;
• RRAP/SNPP/PROV/SKOS/OWL interoperability;
• adoption/conformance language;
• hostile specification review.

Do not admit/publish yet.

Decision

CC-EXP-C04-03 — QMAP SEMANTIC STABILITY PASS WITH MATERIAL REFINEMENTS.

Linked

• 🔎CC-EXP-C04-02 — QMAP Prior-Art & Relation Vocabulary Reduction v0.1
• 🧪CC-EXP-C04-01 — Mapping Qualification Envelope — Decomposition & Generality Test v0.1
• ⚖️CC-ADM-RRAP-01 — Representation Role Assignment Profile — Commons Admission Decision Package v0.1