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 prominent frameworks:
BIAN (Banking Industry Architecture Network) – a service-oriented architecture model tailored for the banking and financial services sector
SAP Enterprise Architecture Framework – SAP’s structured approach to modelling enterprise architecture in SAP-centric environments
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.
Additional context mappings will be added over time as further interoperability requirements emerge, including support for standards such as ArchiMate, TOGAF, and others used across industry and government.
Of the various adjacent metamodels reviewed, only BIAN (Banking Industry Architecture Network) and SAP’s Enterprise Architecture Framework currently provide structured and documented API interfaces suitable for direct integration. These APIs allow dynamic exchange of business architecture data, supporting real-time interoperability with Orthogramic.
Other adjacent schemas—such as those underpinning frameworks like FEAF, DMBOK, or DoDAF—may not yet expose APIs directly but often appear within third-party platforms that do. As Orthogramic evolves, support for interoperability with these schemas will be expanded by leveraging the APIs of intermediary platforms (e.g. data catalogues, enterprise architecture tools, integration layers). This staged approach will ensure that organisations using varied architectures can still benefit from seamless data integration and alignment.
Focus: Banking and financial services
Key concepts: Service Domains, Control Records, Functional Patterns
Adjacency: Aligns well with Orthogramic’s Capabilities, Services, and Value Streams
Used by: Banks, core banking vendors, financial regulators
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Framework / Metamodel | Focus Area | Orthogramic Mapping Strength | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
BIAN | Banking services architecture | High | Service domains map to Orthogramic Services and Capabilities |
SAP EA Framework | Enterprise architecture for SAP | Medium–High | Mappable via Value Streams and Capabilities |
FIBO | Financial concepts and semantics | Medium | Strong alignment with Orthogramic Information, Policy, and Stakeholder domains |
TOGAF | EA methodology and governance | High (method), Medium (metamodel) | Orthogramic can provide structural content for TOGAF ADM phases |
ArchiMate | EA modelling language | Medium–High | Orthogramic data can generate or map to ArchiMate views |
FIBO | Financial industry semantics | Medium | Complements Information and Policy domains |
APQC PCF | Process classification framework | Medium | Aligns with Value Streams and Capability Processes |
Zachman | EA classification schema | Medium | Orthogramic offers structured data where Zachman provides classification |
DMN | Business decision modelling | Medium | Maps to Policy and Process domains for business rule integration |
UAF | Systems-of-systems architecture | Medium | Partial mapping to Capabilities, Initiatives, Strategy |
FEAF | Federal EA framework (US gov) | High | Strong alignment with Capabilities, Performance, Information |
BMM (OMG) | Business motivation model | Very High | Orthogramic’s Strategic Response Model is a superset |
BIZBOK | Business architecture | High | Shared domains (Capabilities, Value Streams, etc.) |
DMBOK (DAMA) | Data governance and management | Medium | Extends Information and Policy domains for stewardship and lineage |
DoDAF DM2 | Defence systems architecture metamodel | Medium–High | Maps to Capabilities, Stakeholders, Initiatives; Orthogramic is more agile |
For technical details on how Orthogramic maps and aligns data structures with external schemas, including BIAN, SAP, and other frameworks, see Integration schema alignment . This page outlines alignment principles, schema translation approaches, and mechanisms for bridging structural differences across metamodels.