Interoperability

Interoperability

Introduction

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 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.

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.

API-enabled interoperability

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.

Adjacent metamodels

1. BIAN (Banking Industry Architecture Network)

  • 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

2. SAP Enterprise Architecture Framework

  • 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

Framework / Metamodel

Focus Area

Orthogramic Mapping Strength

Notes

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

Alignment with external schemas

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.

The Orthogramic Metamodel license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0), ensuring it remains open, collaborative, and widely accessible.