SIP-015 — Jurisdictional Control of Semantic Definitions

Go to Annex C: Requirements

The Governance Model SHALL allow each Jurisdiction to retain Authority over the semantic definitions applicable within its operational boundary.

Different Jurisdictions may assign different meanings to the same term, identifier, code, value, or structural element. They may also use different designations for equivalent or related concepts.

Federation requires these semantic differences to be represented and mapped without silently replacing one Jurisdiction’s meaning with another’s. Preserving jurisdictional control allows participating Jurisdictions to cooperate while retaining Authority over their own Vocabularies, concept definitions, code lists, ontologies, and related semantic Artifacts.

The Submission satisfies this requirement when the Governance Model:

1. Represents each applicable Jurisdiction and its operational boundary
2. Identifies the Authority responsible for semantic definitions within that boundary
3. Identifies the semantic Artifacts controlled by that Authority
4. Supports Jurisdiction-specific approval, revision, supersession, and retirement
5. Preserves the identity, version, provenance, context, and applicability of each semantic definition
6. Supports mappings among semantic definitions without replacing their controlling sources
7. Prevents a cross-jurisdictional mapping from silently changing a Jurisdiction’s authoritative meaning
8. Identifies semantic conflicts for resolution by the appropriate Authority

The Reference Architecture does not determine which Jurisdiction’s semantic definition takes precedence. It must preserve the applicable authorities and surface conflicts for authoritative resolution.

As with SIP-014, consider replacing “allow each Jurisdiction to retain Authority” with “represent and preserve each Jurisdiction’s Authority.”