For a successful communication, autonomous entities (e.g. agents, web services, peers) must reconcile vocabulary used in their ontologies. The result is a set of mappings between ontology entities. Since each party might have its own perspective about what are the best mappings, conflicts will arise. Toward a mapping consensus building between information exchanging parties, this paper proposes an approach based on a formal argumentation framework, whose existing ontology matching algorithms generate the mappings, which are further interpreted into semantic arguments employed during the argumentation. The proposal models a mutual dependency between the mappings and arguments, which goes beyond the state of the art in argumentation-based ontology alignment negotiation, better reflecting the requirements of the task.