feat(ontology): publish DOT/FJA worker-function taxonomy

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -8,6 +8,14 @@ All notable changes to this project are documented here. Format follows
 
 ### Added
 
+- The DOT/FJA Data/People/Things worker-function taxonomy is now published
+  in the canonical ontology: all 24 worker functions carry the official
+  Dictionary of Occupational Titles Appendix B definitions verbatim, their
+  definitional ordinal ranks (ADR 0232). No DOT-to-O*NET or Fleishman
+  crosswalk is inferred without an authoritative mapping source. A
+  deterministic application read
+  model (`lineageweave.worker_function_taxonomy`) exposes fail-closed
+  lookups; ranks are scale positions and are never used as weights.
 - Persist explicit paragraph, list, table, MathML formula, and caller-parsed
   conversation-turn semantic-unit kinds without inferring absent boundaries.
 - Event Lineage now persists each reconstructed connection's independent

docs/adr/0232-worker-function-taxonomy-in-the-published-ontology.md

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+# ADR 0232: Worker-function taxonomy in the published ontology
+
+**Status:** Accepted  
+**Date:** 2026-08-26  
+**Extends:** [ADR 0004](0004-knowledge-graph-ontology.md), [ADR 0145](0145-psychometric-channel-weight-estimation.md), [ADR 0207](0207-repository-case-ontology-namespace-canonical.md)
+
+## Context
+
+Industrial and organizational psychology describes work through
+worker functions rather than job titles. Functional Job Analysis (FJA)
+expresses every job's relationship to *Data*, *People*, and *Things*
+through three ordered lists, carried verbatim in the Dictionary of
+Occupational Titles Appendix B (U.S. Department of Labor, 1991): Data
+ranks 0-6, People ranks 0-8, Things ranks 0-7, each ordered so that the
+lower digit names the more complex function (Fine & Cronshaw, 1999).
+The cited Fleishman and O*NET sources define separate ability, skill,
+and work-style taxonomies, but do not publish a crosswalk from these 24
+DOT worker functions. Mapping them locally would be an unsupported
+semantic assertion.
+
+The repository had no representation for this vocabulary: a post or
+analysis cannot yet say "this evidence describes Analyzing-level data
+work" without inventing an untracked term. The ontology is the correct
+home -- it already publishes the governed semantic layer over
+PostgreSQL graph facts -- but two constraints bind any addition:
+
+1. The lookup-code round trip (`tests/test_ontology.py`) requires every
+   `:lookupCode` term to exist as a seeded `common_lookup_value` row and
+   vice versa. Worker functions are not relational lookup rows today.
+2. Measurement stays governed by ADR 0145: nothing may mint a numeric
+   weight from a qualitative taxonomy.
+
+## Decision
+
+1. Publish all 24 worker functions as a `skos:ConceptScheme`
+   (`:workerFunctionScheme`) of `:WorkerFunction` concepts in
+   `docs/ontology/lineageweave-kg.ttl`, each carrying the official DOT
+   Appendix B definition verbatim as its `skos:definition`, its definitional
+   rank (`:fjaRank`), and its domain (`:fjaDomain`). No DOT-to-O*NET or
+   Fleishman crosswalk is asserted without an authoritative mapping source.
+2. Like column-projection datatype properties, these concepts carry no
+   `:lookupCode`: they are not `common_lookup_value` rows, so the round
+   trip is untouched. Binding a function to stored rows needs a separate
+   schema-and-seed decision.
+3. Ranks are scale positions copied from the published table. They are
+   never fitted, calibrated, renormalized, or used as weights; this
+   decision adds zero arithmetic to the measurement layer.
+4. The application read model lives in
+   `lineageweave/worker_function_taxonomy.py`: cached, deterministically
+   sorted records; `(domain, rank)` lookups that return ``None``/``{}``
+   for absent ranks (honest unknown) and raise ``ValueError`` for an
+   unrecognized domain (caller error); fail-closed ``ValueError`` on a
+   malformed TTL declaration.
+5. The canonical repository-case namespace (ADR 0207) mints every IRI;
+   no lowercase compatibility form is introduced.
+
+## Consequences
+
+- The IO-psychology worker-function vocabulary becomes addressable and
+  citable inside the published semantic layer before any persistence
+  decision exists.
+- A future crosswalk requires its own provenance-bearing decision and an
+  authoritative mapping source; shared labels alone are not such evidence.
+- Adding DB-backed function annotations later means one migration plus
+  seed rows and `:lookupCode` declarations -- the extension path is
+  additive by construction.
+- `tests/test_worker_function_taxonomy.py` pins the complete published text,
+  so truncation, paraphrase, and spelling drift fail CI.
+
+## Verification
+
+- `tests/test_worker_function_taxonomy.py`: completeness (24 concepts),
+  per-domain rank extents, complete verbatim official definitions,
+  deterministic ordering, canonical namespace, fail-closed lookups.
+- `tests/test_ontology.py` continues to pass unchanged: the round trip
+  sees no new lookup codes.
+
+## References
+
+Fine, S. A., & Cronshaw, S. F. (1999). *Functional job analysis: A
+foundation for human resources management*. Lawrence Erlbaum
+Associates.
+
+Fleishman, E. A., & Quaintance, M. K. (1984). *Taxonomies of human
+performance: The description of human tasks*. Academic Press.
+
+Fleishman, E. A., Costanza, D. P., & Marshall-Mies, J. C. (1999).
+Abilities. In N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R.
+Jeanneret, & E. A. Fleishman (Eds.), *An occupational information system
+for the 21st century: The development of O*NET* (pp. 97-112). American
+Psychological Association.
+
+Mumford, M. D., Peterson, N. G., & Childs, R. A. (1999). Basic and
+cross-functional skills. In N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman,
+P. R. Jeanneret, & E. A. Fleishman (Eds.), *An occupational information
+system for the 21st century: The development of O*NET* (pp. 49-69).
+American Psychological Association.
+
+Peterson, N. G., Mumford, M. D., Borman, W. C., Jeanneret, P. R., &
+Fleishman, E. A. (Eds.). (1999). *An occupational information system for
+the 21st century: The development of O\*NET*. American Psychological
+Association.
+
+U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). *Dictionary of occupational titles*
+(4th ed., rev., Appendix B). U.S. Government Printing Office.
+https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/PUBLIC/DOT/REFERENCES/DOTAPPB
+
+Cyganiak, R., Wood, D., & Lanthaler, M. (Eds.). (2014). *RDF 1.1
+concepts and abstract syntax*. World Wide Web Consortium.
+https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/

docs/adr/README.md

@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ decision from them.
 | Evidence operations Dashboard (`/`) | [0206](0206-evidence-operations-dashboard.md) |
 | [`temporal-topic-context-influence-research.md`](../temporal-topic-context-influence-research.md) | [0210](0210-temporal-topic-context-influence-dashboard.md) |
 | [`python-mathematical-compute-boundary-audit.md`](../doctoring/python-mathematical-compute-boundary-audit.md) | [0208](0208-externalize-local-mathematical-compute.md) |
+| [`WORKER_FUNCTION_TAXONOMY_REFERENCES.md`](../doctoring/WORKER_FUNCTION_TAXONOMY_REFERENCES.md) | [0232](0232-worker-function-taxonomy-in-the-published-ontology.md) |
 
 [0011](0011-prov-o-standard-relations.md) and [0065](0065-prov-o-provenance-boundary.md) cite the dated W3C PROV-O and PROV-DM Recommendations (https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/ and https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-dm-20130430/).
 

docs/doctoring/WORKER_FUNCTION_TAXONOMY_REFERENCES.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Worker-Function Taxonomy References
+
+Supporting literature for [ADR
+0232](../adr/0232-worker-function-taxonomy-in-the-published-ontology.md).
+APA 7th edition. This list is the citation record for the DOT/FJA
+Data/People/Things worker functions. The cited Fleishman and O*NET sources
+do not establish a crosswalk from those functions.
+
+Fine, S. A., & Cronshaw, S. F. (1999). *Functional job analysis: A
+foundation for human resources management*. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
+
+Fleishman, E. A., & Quaintance, M. K. (1984). *Taxonomies of human
+performance: The description of human tasks*. Academic Press.
+
+Fleishman, E. A., Costanza, D. P., & Marshall-Mies, J. C. (1999).
+Abilities. In N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R.
+Jeanneret, & E. A. Fleishman (Eds.), *An occupational information system
+for the 21st century: The development of O\*NET* (pp. 97–112). American
+Psychological Association.
+
+Mumford, M. D., Peterson, N. G., & Childs, R. A. (1999). Basic and
+cross-functional skills. In N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman,
+P. R. Jeanneret, & E. A. Fleishman (Eds.), *An occupational information
+system for the 21st century: The development of O\*NET* (pp. 49–69).
+American Psychological Association.
+
+Peterson, N. G., Mumford, M. D., Borman, W. C., Jeanneret, P. R., &
+Fleishman, E. A. (Eds.). (1999). *An occupational information system for
+the 21st century: The development of O\*NET*. American Psychological
+Association.
+
+U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). *Dictionary of occupational titles*
+(4th ed., rev., Appendix B). U.S. Government Printing Office.
+https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/PUBLIC/DOT/REFERENCES/DOTAPPB
+
+Cyganiak, R., Wood, D., & Lanthaler, M. (Eds.). (2014). *RDF 1.1
+concepts and abstract syntax*. World Wide Web Consortium.
+https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/
+
+Knublauch, H., & Kontokostas, D. (Eds.). (2017). *Shapes constraint
+language (SHACL)*. World Wide Web Consortium. https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/
+
+## Scope note
+
+Worker-function ranks are ordinal positions copied from the published
+DOT table; they are definitional scale positions and never fitted or
+calibrated weights. Score interpretation and fairness remain governed by
+AERA, APA, and NCME (2014), cited in the repository's measurement-boundary
+ADRs ([ADR 0145](../adr/0145-psychometric-channel-weight-estimation.md)).