feat(ontology): add source-grounded occupational taxonomy

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -8,6 +8,21 @@ All notable changes to this project are documented here. Format follows
 
 ### Added
 
+- The occupational-classification and worker-characteristic taxonomy is now
+  published in the canonical ontology: all 23 major groups of the 2018
+  Standard Occupational Classification (the O*NET job families) carry
+  official titles and codes verbatim, the four O*NET 31.0 job-zone categories
+  carry their published names and source values, and source-native
+  worker-characteristic families are addressable -- Fleishman's four ability domains,
+  Holland's six RIASEC interest types with the published hexagonal adjacency,
+  the six legacy O*NET work-value clusters, and the seven higher-order
+  revised O*NET Work Styles dimensions (ADR 0245). Typed derivation properties from
+  classifications to characteristics are declared but assert no instance
+  binding; a deterministic application read model
+  (`lineageweave.io_taxonomy`) exposes fail-closed lookups, and no numeric
+  importance or level rating is imported. Each scheme links to versioned
+  PROV source entities with publisher/creator and rights/license metadata;
+  the stable O*NET 31.0 Job Zone JSON carries its verified SHA-256.
 - Evidence-bound occupational construct semantics now keep cognitive
   abilities, work styles, work activities, affective reactions, performance
   behaviors, and FJA worker functions distinct. Record-to-construct links

docs/adr/0245-io-occupational-taxonomy-in-the-published-ontology.md

@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+# ADR 0245: Occupational classification and worker-characteristic 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), [ADR 0232](0232-worker-function-taxonomy-in-the-published-ontology.md)
+
+## Context
+
+Industrial and organizational psychology classifies work twice: once by
+*what* the occupation is -- the 2018 Standard Occupational Classification
+major groups, which the O*NET program publishes as its job families --
+and once by *which human characteristics* doing it exercises. The O*NET
+content model organizes those characteristics under every occupation as
+abilities, occupational interests, work values, and work styles
+(Peterson et al., 1999; Peterson et al., 2001). Holland's RIASEC hexagon
+supplies the interest vocabulary with a published structural claim about
+adjacency (Holland, 1997); Hogan and Holland (2003) established the
+relationship between personality and job performance but is not the source
+of the O*NET vocabulary; the revised O*NET Work Styles report supplies its
+seven higher-order dimensions. Fleishman and Quaintance (1984) supply the
+four ability domains. O*NET 31.0 publishes four Job Zone categories under
+source values 2 through 5 after combining the former first two zones.
+
+ADR 0232 already publishes the DOT/FJA worker functions, so stored
+evidence can name *how* a worker functioned on data, people, or things.
+It cannot yet say *which occupational family* the evidence belongs to,
+nor resolve its cognitive, affective, and behavioral content into the
+published characteristic families. The ontology is again the correct
+home, under the same two constraints that bound ADR 0232:
+
+1. The lookup-code round trip (`tests/test_ontology.py`) must stay
+   untouched: these concepts are not `common_lookup_value` rows.
+2. Measurement stays governed by ADR 0145: no numeric importance or
+   level rating from any occupational profile may be imported, fitted,
+   or renormalized.
+
+## Decision
+
+1. Publish all 23 major groups of the 2018 Standard Occupational
+   Classification verbatim -- official titles and ``NN-0000`` codes --
+   as a `skos:ConceptScheme` (`:socMajorGroupScheme`) of
+   `:OccupationalMajorGroup` concepts, matching the O*NET job-family
+   grouping.
+2. Publish the four O*NET 31.0 Job Zone categories (`:jobZoneScheme`) with
+   their published names and source values (`:jobZoneLevel` 2-5). These
+   values are source identifiers, not fitted or ordinal weights.
+3. Publish distinct source-native worker-characteristic families, without
+   collapsing them into cognition, affect, or behavior, as subclasses of
+   `:WorkerCharacteristic` inside one scheme
+   (`:workerCharacteristicScheme`):
+   - Fleishman's four ability domains (`:AbilityDomain`);
+   - Holland's six RIASEC interest types (`:InterestType`), each with
+     the standard Interest Profiler family description verbatim;
+   - the six historical O*NET work-value clusters (`:WorkValueCluster`),
+     explicitly labeled legacy because O*NET 31.0 no longer publishes the
+     Work Values branch;
+   - the seven higher-order dimensions in the revised O*NET Work Styles
+     structure (`:WorkStyleFamily`). The 21 lower-order dimensions and the
+     separate four-component occupation-level analysis remain an explicit
+     import gap; neither may be inferred from these family nodes.
+4. Assert only the published structural relation between interest
+   types: `:riasecAdjacentTo`, a symmetric property whose six asserted
+   pairs are exactly the hexagonal ring edges Realistic-Investigative-
+   Artistic-Social-Enterprising-Conventional-Realistic (Holland, 1997).
+   Adjacency is a similarity ordering, not a score.
+5. Declare `:OccupationalClassification` as the future common hierarchy
+   class and four domain/range-typed derivation properties --
+   `:occupationalAbilityDemand`, `:occupationalInterestProfile`,
+   `:occupationalValueOrientation`, and `:occupationalWorkStyleNorm` --
+   but assert **no instance binding**. Binding a major group to a
+   characteristic requires importing a versioned released source
+   profile (for example an O*NET database release) with provenance in
+   its own future decision; inventing per-family profiles here would
+   fabricate evidence.
+6. Like ADR 0232, none of these concepts carries `:lookupCode`; ranks
+   and levels are scale positions from published tables and are never
+   used as weights; every IRI is minted in the canonical
+   repository-case namespace (ADR 0207).
+7. The application read model lives in `lineageweave/io_taxonomy.py`:
+   cached, deterministically sorted records for each scheme;
+   well-formed-key lookups that return ``None`` for genuinely
+   undeclared codes or levels (honest unknown); fail-closed
+   ``ValueError`` for malformed keys, malformed TTL declarations,
+   neighbors outside the closed RIASEC vocabulary, or a type without
+   exactly two neighbors.
+8. Each concept scheme names its source entities through
+   `prov:wasDerivedFrom`. Source entities retain title, publisher or creator,
+   explicit release/version, source URL, and applicable rights or license.
+   `:sourceArtifactSha256` is present only when an exact stable artifact was
+   downloaded and hashed; the O*NET 31.0 Job Zone JSON is pinned to SHA-256
+   `f66d665a2e507c825a71aedb2c13ba22765e8259bc6c7fe5b3cdfd8105475a66`.
+   A dynamic page without a reproducible artifact carries no invented digest.
+
+## Consequences
+
+- Job families, job zones, and the full published
+  source-native characteristic-family vocabulary become addressable and
+  citable inside the semantic layer before any persistence decision exists.
+- A classification never supports inferring an individual's cognition,
+  affect, personality, behavior, competence, suitability, or job
+  performance. Those uses require their own intended-use validity and
+  fairness evidence and are outside this decision.
+- Per-major-group characteristic profiles remain deliberately absent:
+  the derivation properties make their future shape typed and
+  addressable without asserting anything the sources do not state at
+  this granularity.
+- Adding DB-backed profile bindings later means one migration plus
+  provenance-bearing import of a released source database -- the
+  extension path is additive by construction, mirroring ADR 0232.
+- `tests/test_io_taxonomy.py` pins the published titles, counts,
+  adjacency structure, closed vocabularies, and fail-closed lookups, so
+  drift toward invented constructs fails CI.
+
+## Verification
+
+- `tests/test_io_taxonomy.py`: completeness (23 groups, 4 zones, 6
+  types, 6 legacy clusters, 7 style dimensions, 4 ability domains), verbatim
+  official titles, code-shape validation, published hexagon adjacency,
+  deterministic ordering, canonical namespace, lookup round-trip
+  isolation, and fail-closed lookups.
+- `tests/test_ontology.py` continues to pass unchanged: the round trip
+  sees no new lookup codes.
+- Source-provenance tests require every new scheme to resolve to the declared
+  PROV entity and verify O*NET version, publisher, CC BY 4.0 license, artifact
+  digest, and SOC version/publisher/rights metadata.
+
+## References
+
+Fleishman, E. A., & Quaintance, M. K. (1984). *Taxonomies of human
+performance: The description of human tasks*. Academic Press.
+
+Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality
+and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic interpretation.
+*Journal of Applied Psychology, 88*(1), 100-112.
+https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.100
+
+Holland, J. L. (1997). *Making vocational choices: A theory of
+vocational personalities and work environments* (3rd ed.). Psychological
+Assessment Resources.
+
+Peterson, N. G., Mumford, M. D., Borman, W. C., Jeanneret, P. R.,
+Fleishman, E. A., Levin, K. Y., Campion, M. A., Mayfield, M. S.,
+Morgeson, F. P., Pearlman, K., Gowing, M. K., Lancaster, A. R., Silver,
+M. B., & Dye, D. M. (2001). Understanding work using the Occupational
+Information Network (O*NET): Implications for practice and research.
+*Personnel Psychology, 54*(2), 451-492.
+https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00098.x
+
+National Center for O*NET Development. (2024). *Revisiting the work
+styles domain of the O*NET content model* (updated May 2026).
+https://www.onetcenter.org/reports/Work_Styles_New.html
+
+National Center for O*NET Development. (2026). *Job zone reference:
+O*NET 31.0 database*.
+https://www.onetcenter.org/dictionary/31.0/json/job_zone_reference.html
+
+U.S. Department of Labor. (2018). *2018 Standard Occupational
+Classification System*. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
+https://www.bls.gov/soc/

docs/adr/README.md

@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ decision from them.
 | [`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) |
+| [`IO_OCCUPATIONAL_TAXONOMY_REFERENCES.md`](../doctoring/IO_OCCUPATIONAL_TAXONOMY_REFERENCES.md) | [0245](0245-io-occupational-taxonomy-in-the-published-ontology.md) |
 | [`OCCUPATIONAL_CONSTRUCT_REFERENCES.md`](../doctoring/OCCUPATIONAL_CONSTRUCT_REFERENCES.md) | [0248](0248-occupational-construct-evidence-boundary.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/IO_OCCUPATIONAL_TAXONOMY_REFERENCES.md

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+# I-O occupational taxonomy references
+
+Supporting, non-normative citation register for ADR 0245. Every claim
+the occupational-classification and worker-characteristic layer makes
+resolves into one of the dated sources below; nothing in
+`docs/ontology/lineageweave-kg.ttl` or `lineageweave/io_taxonomy.py`
+may rest on an uncited source.
+
+## Ability domains
+
+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.
+
+## Interest types and their structure
+
+Holland, J. L. (1997). *Making vocational choices: A theory of
+vocational personalities and work environments* (3rd ed.). Psychological
+Assessment Resources.
+
+## Work styles
+
+National Center for O*NET Development. (2024). *Revisiting the work
+styles domain of the O*NET content model* (updated May 2026).
+https://www.onetcenter.org/reports/Work_Styles_New.html
+
+Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality
+and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic interpretation.
+*Journal of Applied Psychology, 88*(1), 100-112.
+https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.100
+
+The Hogan and Holland study supports personality and job-performance
+interpretation; it is not the source of the current O*NET Work Styles
+vocabulary.
+
+## O*NET content model, job zones, work values, and skills
+
+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.
+
+Peterson, N. G., Mumford, M. D., Borman, W. C., Jeanneret, P. R.,
+Fleishman, E. A., Levin, K. Y., Campion, M. A., Mayfield, M. S.,
+Morgeson, F. P., Pearlman, K., Gowing, M. K., Lancaster, A. R., Silver,
+M. B., & Dye, D. M. (2001). Understanding work using the Occupational
+Information Network (O*NET): Implications for practice and research.
+*Personnel Psychology, 54*(2), 451-492.
+https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00098.x
+
+National Center for O*NET Development. (n.d.). *The O*NET content
+model*. https://www.onetcenter.org/contentmodel/
+
+National Center for O*NET Development. (2026). *Job zone reference:
+O*NET 31.0 database*. https://www.onetcenter.org/dictionary/31.0/json/job_zone_reference.html
+
+National Center for O*NET Development. (n.d.). *O*NET 31.0 database
+content license*. https://www.onetcenter.org/license_db.html
+
+## Occupational classification table
+
+U.S. Department of Labor. (2018). *2018 Standard Occupational
+Classification System*. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
+https://www.bls.gov/soc/
+
+National Center for O*NET Development. (n.d.). *O*NET taxonomy*.
+https://www.onetcenter.org/taxonomy.html
+
+## Interpretation boundary
+
+Score interpretation and fairness remain governed by:
+
+American Educational Research Association, American Psychological
+Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014).
+*Standards for educational and psychological testing*. American
+Educational Research Association.
+
+The taxonomy publishes names, codes, and structural relations only. It
+carries no importance rating, no level score, and no calibrated weight;
+presenting any of its scale positions as measured requirements would
+violate ADR 0145 and the Standards' validity-evidence requirements.
+O*NET-derived content identifies the National Center for O*NET Development,
+the 31.0 release where applicable, CC BY 4.0, and modifications in the
+ontology source entities. SOC terms identify BLS and the DOL rights policy.