Content Comparison

...

The Orthogramic Metamodel is designed to facilitate semantic interoperability across diverse enterprise architecture frameworks. To support this objective, we have developed detailed JSON-LD context mappings for two three prominent frameworks:

1. BIAN (Banking Industry Architecture Network) – a service-oriented architecture model tailored for the banking and financial services sector

2. SAP Enterprise Architecture Framework – SAP’s structured approach to modelling enterprise architecture in SAP-centric environments

3. FIBO (Financial Industry Business Ontology) - an ontology-based standard for defining financial concepts, instruments, legal entities, and regulatory semantics in a machine-readable format

These mappings enable seamless integration between the Orthogramic Metamodel and these established frameworks, promoting consistency and reuse in enterprise modelling, data transformation, and knowledge graph construction.

...

• Focus: Structuring enterprise architecture in SAP-centric environments

• Key concepts: Business Capability Map, Reference Architectures, Value Maps

• Adjacency: Orthogramic’s Capabilities, Value Streams, and Initiatives are directly applicable for SAP-aligned transformation programs

• Comparison: SAP’s metamodel is more vendor-specific; Orthogramic is open and technology-neutral but mappable

• Used by: SAP clients and consultants, enterprise architects in transformation programs

3. FIBO (Financial Industry Business Ontology)

• Focus: Financial concepts, instruments, and regulatory semantics

• Key concepts: Legal entities, financial contracts, securities, regulatory terms

• Adjacency: Aligns with Orthogramic’s Information, Policy, and Stakeholder domains

• Used by: Financial institutions, regulators, compliance teams, data modelers

4. TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework)

• Focus: Enterprise architecture (holistic)

• Key concepts: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Business/Data/Application/Technology architecture

• Adjacency: TOGAF provides method; Orthogramic can provide structure and content

• Used by: Enterprise architects, CIO offices

...

5. ArchiMate (Open Group Modelling Language)

• Focus: Visual modelling for enterprise architecture

• Key concepts: Layers (Business, Application, Technology), relationships between elements

• Adjacency: Orthogramic data can be rendered into ArchiMate views

• Used by: Modellers, architects, solution designers

...

6. FIBO (Financial Industry Business Ontology)

• Focus: Semantic definition of financial concepts

• Key concepts: Legal entities, contracts, financial instruments (OWL-based)

• Adjacency: Aligns with Orthogramic's Information and Policy domains

• Used by: Data modellers, compliance officers, banks

...

7. APQC Process Classification Framework

• Focus: Process mapping across industries

• Key concepts: Universal hierarchy of processes (e.g. 1.0 Develop Vision and Strategy)

• Adjacency: Can inform Orthogramic Value Streams and Capability Processes

• Used by: Operational excellence teams, BPM professionals

...

8. Zachman Framework

• Focus: Classification schema for enterprise architecture

• Key concepts: Who, What, Where, When, Why, How × Stakeholder roles

• Adjacency: Conceptual guidance; less useful for schema-based or machine-readable modelling

• Used by: Strategic planners, EA consultants

...

9. DMN (Decision Model and Notation)

• Focus: Business rules and decision logic

• Key concepts: Decision Tables, Input Data, Knowledge Sources

• Adjacency: Can plug into Orthogramic Policy or Capability Processes

• Used by: Process designers, rule engines, regulatory modelling

...

10. UAF (Unified Architecture Framework by OMG)

• Focus: Systems-of-systems (e.g. defence, aerospace)

• Key concepts: Capability, Operational, Resource, and Strategic views

• Adjacency: Some overlap with Orthogramic domains like Capabilities and Strategy

• Used by: Defence and aerospace architecture teams

...

11. FEAF (Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework)

• Focus: US government enterprise architecture

• Key concepts: Performance Reference Model, Business Reference Model, Service and Data Models

• Adjacency: Strong alignment with Orthogramic's domains — especially Capabilities, Performance, Services, and Information

• Comparison: Orthogramic offers finer granularity and is schema-first, while FEAF offers government-wide standardisation

• Used by: U.S. federal agencies, public sector EA teams

...

12. BMM (Business Motivation Model – OMG)

• Focus: Capturing why an enterprise does what it does

• Key concepts: Ends (goals, objectives), Means (strategies, tactics), Influencers, Assessments

• Adjacency: Complements Orthogramic’s Strategic Response Model — especially Trigger, Rationale, and StrategicResponse

• Comparison: BMM is more narrowly focused on motivation and influence, while Orthogramic incorporates motivation as one dimension within a broader operational model

• Used by: Business modellers, strategic planners

...

13. BIZBOK (Business Architecture Body of Knowledge)

• Focus: General business architecture

• Key concepts: Capabilities, Value Streams, Information, Stakeholders

• Adjacency: Orthogramic is structurally richer and schema-first; BIZBOK is more narrative

• Used by: Business architects across industries

...

14. DMBOK (Data Management Body of Knowledge by DAMA)

• Focus: Enterprise data governance and management

• Key concepts: Data Governance, Data Quality, Metadata, Reference and Master Data

• Adjacency: Orthogramic’s Information and Policy domains can be extended to cover DMBOK principles

• Comparison: DMBOK is deeper in data operations, Orthogramic focuses more on how information supports business architecture

• Used by: Data governance teams, CDOs, enterprise data stewards

...

15. DoDAF DM2 (Department of Defense Architecture Framework Data Metamodel)

• Focus: Military systems architecture and interoperability

• Key concepts: Capability, Performer, Activity, Resource Flow, Standards

• Adjacency: Orthogramic’s Capabilities, Stakeholders, Initiatives, and Value Streams map well conceptually

• Comparison: DoDAF is highly formal, based on mission assurance and traceability; Orthogramic is lighter, more flexible

• Used by: Defence agencies, system-of-systems architects, NATO/coalition partners

Summary comparison table

...