Comparison

OCOM vs Ontology

Executive summary

OCOM and ontologies both formalize meaning, but at different layers. An ontology (RDFS, OWL) defines classes, properties and logical axioms so machines can reason about what terms mean and infer new facts. OCOM defines a governed operating model, objects with identity, ownership, lifecycle, policy and evidence, for running an organization. An ontology answers 'what does this concept mean and what can be inferred'; OCOM answers 'what exists operationally and how is it governed'. An OCOM model can be expressed with an ontology, but an ontology does not, by itself, supply ownership, lifecycle or evidence.

Scope

Compared

  • How each defines concepts, classes and properties
  • How each treats meaning, reasoning and validation
  • What each is fundamentally for

Not compared

  • Specific languages (RDFS, OWL, SHACL) or reasoners
  • Description-logic expressivity profiles
  • Vendor triple stores or tools

Terminology mapping

OCOMOntologyEquivalent
ObjectClass / IndividualPartial
ClassificationClass, subClassOfSimilar
RelationshipObjectPropertySimilar
MetadataDatatypeProperty / AnnotationSimilar
ConstraintAxiom / SHACL shapePartial
IdentityIRIPartial
OwnershipNone
LifecycleNone
EvidenceProvenance annotationsPartial

Conceptual differences

AspectOCOMOntology
PurposeGoverns operational objects and their realityFormalises meaning so machines can infer
NatureAn operating model with rules and conformanceA logical theory of a domain
ReasoningValidation and conformanceInference and entailment
GovernanceFirst-class: ownership, policy, contractNot defined by the model
LifecycleFirst-class: objects have states over timeNot defined by the model

Concept coverage

ConceptOCOMOntology
IdentityCoveredCovered
RelationshipsCoveredCovered
ClassificationCoveredCovered
MetadataCoveredCovered
Formal inferenceOut of scopeCovered
Constraints / validationCoveredCovered
LifecycleCoveredOut of scope
GovernancePartialOut of scope
OwnershipCoveredOut of scope
Provenance / EvidencePartialPartial

Two OCOM cells read Partial rather than Covered (Governance, Provenance / Evidence), and the reason for each is recorded in the specification's own register: Governance is a Core Characteristic of every Object that no document defines as one (AO-023); Evidence has no Meta, Models or Language definition, its Definition being reserved for a future version (AO-021). Workflow and Event are defined normatively at the Models tier and carry no Core Vocabulary term record.

Covered: the model defines the concept explicitly. Partial: the concept appears indirectly or by convention. Out of scope: the model does not set out to describe it; a boundary, not a deficiency.

Interoperability

References