# OntolEDGY Documentation - DRAFT v.0.1 ## Enterprise Design Graph InterplaY - Formal Specification DRAFT **Version**: 0.1-draft **Last Updated**: September 22, 2024 **Authors**: Intersection Group, Omyn Health **Methodology**: Maria Keet Standards Compliance (Draft Implementation) **Status**: **DRAFT - REQUIRES EMPIRICAL VALIDATION** **License**: Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 --- ## DOCUMENT STATUS AND LIMITATIONS **This is a DRAFT specification that has undergone conceptual analysis but requires empirical validation before production use.** ### What Has Been Done (Verified) - [x] Structural analysis of TTL syntax and semantics - [x] Alignment verification with EDGY 23 Language Foundations - [x] Conceptual consistency checking (manual) - [x] Competency question design (untested) - [x] Ontological design pattern analysis ### What Remains To Be Done (Critical) - [ ] Automated consistency checking with reasoners - [ ] OOPS! pitfall scanner execution - [ ] Performance benchmarking with real data - [ ] Expert domain validation with Intersection core team review - [ ] Tool compatibility verification - [ ] SPARQL query execution and validation --- ## 1. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE ### 1.1 Purpose The EDGY ontology provides a formal semantic foundation for the Enterprise Design Graph InterplaY framework. This DRAFT specification outlines the conceptual design and intended formal semantics, pending empirical validation. ### 1.2 Domain and Scope **Primary Domain**: Enterprise architecture and organizational design **Application Range**: Commercial enterprises, non-profit organizations, government institutions **Granularity**: Strategic to operational enterprise levels **Temporal Scope**: Current state and future state enterprise configurations **Spatial Scope**: Single organizations to multi-enterprise ecosystems ### 1.3 Intended Users **Primary Users**: - Enterprise architects designing organizational structures - Business analysts modeling enterprise processes - Organizational designers optimizing enterprise configurations - Systems thinking practitioners analyzing complex organizations **Secondary Users**: - Tool developers requiring enterprise semantics - Researchers in organizational theory - Consultants implementing enterprise transformations ### 1.4 Ontological Commitments **Graph Theory Foundation**: Enterprises are modeled as directed graphs where elements (nodes) are connected through relationships (edges) to form analyzable network structures. **Function Behaviour Structure Alignment**: - Function: Desired outcomes and purposes (edgy:Purpose, edgy:Outcome) - Behaviour: Observable activities and processes (edgy:Process, edgy:Activity, edgy:Journey) - Structure: Physical and organizational objects (edgy:Asset, edgy:Organization, edgy:Product) **Three-Relationship Primitive System**: All enterprise relationships derive from three fundamental primitives (link, flow, tree) ensuring consistent semantic modeling. **Facet-Based Multi-Perspective Modeling**: Three complementary facets (Experience, Architecture, Identity) provide complete enterprise coverage through intersection elements. --- ## 2. DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY ### 2.1 Methodological Approach **Primary Methodology**: Hybrid macro-level (NeON methodology) and micro-level (OntoClean) development approach following Keet Chapter 5 guidelines. **Knowledge Engineering Process** (Applied to Date): - [x] **Requirements Analysis**: EDGY 23 Language Foundations specification analysis - [x] **Conceptualization**: Graph-theoretic enterprise modeling principles - [x] **Formalization**: OWL 2 EL ontology implementation (structural) - [x] **Implementation**: Turtle serialization with formal axioms - [ ] **Evaluation**: **PENDING** - Requires empirical validation ### 2.2 Knowledge Sources **Primary Authoritative Sources**: - [x] EDGY 23: Language Foundations (Intersection Group, 2023) - Analyzed - [x] Function Behaviour Structure Ontology (Gero, 1990) - Conceptually aligned - [x] Graph Theory in Enterprise Architecture - Conceptually integrated **Secondary Supporting Sources**: - [x] ArchiMate 3.1 Enterprise Architecture Modeling Language - Reviewed - [x] Systems Thinking in Practice (Checkland, 1999) - Conceptually aligned - [x] Enterprise Engineering methodologies - Reviewed **Validation Sources** (**PENDING**): - [ ] Real-world enterprise case studies - [ ] Expert domain knowledge validation - [ ] Tool implementation feedback ### 2.3 Design Principles (Implemented) - [x] **Principle P1**: **Three-Primitive Constraint**: All object properties must specialize link, flow, or tree primitives ensuring consistent relationship semantics. **Verified structurally** - [x] **Principle P2**: **Facet Coverage**: Every element must be viewable through at least one facet ensuring complete enterprise perspective coverage. **Implemented axiomatically** - [x] **Principle P3**: **Graph Connectivity**: All elements must connect to at least one other element preventing isolated nodes in enterprise graphs. **Implemented axiomatically** - [x] **Principle P4**: **Intersection Formalization**: Cross-facet elements (Organization, Product) must be formally defined as facet intersections using OWL equivalence classes. **Implemented axiomatically** --- ## 3. COMPETENCY QUESTIONS (DESIGNED - UNTESTED) **⚠️ These competency questions have been designed based on requirements analysis but have NOT been empirically tested with real data or SPARQL execution.** ### 3.1 Structural Analysis Questions **CQ1**: "What capabilities does an organization possess to enable specific processes?" ``` PREFIX edgy: SELECT ?org ?capability ?process WHERE { ?org a edgy:Organization ; edgy:possesses ?capability . ?process a edgy:Process ; edgy:requires ?capability . } ``` - [ ] **Status**: **UNTESTED** - Requires SPARQL endpoint and test data **CQ2**: "Which products serve customer tasks within user journeys?" ``` PREFIX edgy: SELECT ?product ?task ?journey WHERE { ?journey a edgy:Journey . ?task edgy:marksa ?journey . ?product edgy:serves ?task . } ``` - [ ] **Status**: **UNTESTED** - Requires SPARQL endpoint and test data **CQ3**: "What assets are required by capabilities to deliver specific products?" ``` PREFIX edgy: SELECT ?asset ?capability ?product WHERE { ?capability edgy:requires ?asset . ?process edgy:realizes ?capability ; edgy:delivers ?product . } ``` - [ ] **Status**: **UNTESTED** - Requires SPARQL endpoint and test data ### 3.2 Dynamic Flow Analysis Questions **CQ4**: "How do brand representations propagate through organizational purposes?" ``` PREFIX edgy: SELECT ?brand ?purpose ?element WHERE { ?brand edgy:represents ?purpose . ?element edgy:pursues ?purpose . } ``` - [ ] **Status**: **UNTESTED** - Requires SPARQL endpoint and test data ### 3.3 Cross-Facet InterplaY Questions **CQ5**: "Which elements operate at the intersection of multiple facets?" ``` PREFIX edgy: SELECT ?element ?facet1 ?facet2 WHERE { ?element edgy:viewedThrough ?facet1, ?facet2 . FILTER(?facet1 != ?facet2) } ``` - [ ] **Status**: **UNTESTED** - Requires SPARQL endpoint and test data --- ## 4. CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE (VERIFIED) ### 4.1 Core Class Hierarchy ``` EDGY Enterprise Elements: edgy:Element (abstract base class) ├── edgy:Object (concrete physical/digital entities) │ ├── edgy:Asset (capabilities-enabling resources) │ ├── edgy:Content (story-conveying information) │ ├── edgy:Organization (people working together) [Architecture ∩ Identity] │ ├── edgy:People (individual stakeholders) │ └── edgy:Product (customer-serving offerings) [Architecture ∩ Experience] ├── edgy:Activity (dynamic behaviors) │ ├── edgy:Journey (stakeholder experience sequences) [Experience] │ ├── edgy:Process (capability-realizing procedures) [Architecture] │ └── edgy:Task (people-accomplished goals) ├── edgy:Brand (market-facing identity representation) [Identity] ├── edgy:Capability (process-enabling organizational abilities) [Architecture] ├── edgy:Channel (experience-delivering touchpoints) [Experience] ├── edgy:Outcome (achievement-targeted results) │ └── edgy:Purpose (enterprise existence-justifying reasons) └── edgy:Story (meaning-conveying narratives) [Identity] ``` - [x] **Verification Status**: **Structurally verified** against EDGY 23 specification ### 4.2 Relationship Architecture (Verified) **Three Primitive Relationships**: **edgy:link** (Structural Association): - **Domain/Range**: owl:Thing → owl:Thing - **Characteristics**: Symmetric by default, can be asymmetric in specializations - **Purpose**: Static structural relationships between enterprise elements **edgy:flow** (Dynamic Sequence): - **Domain/Range**: owl:Thing → owl:Thing - **Characteristics**: AsymmetricProperty (directional behavioral flows) - **Purpose**: Dynamic behavioral sequences and object passing between elements **edgy:tree** (Hierarchical Containment): - **Domain/Range**: owl:Thing → owl:Thing - **Characteristics**: IrreflexiveProperty, AsymmetricProperty - **Purpose**: Hierarchical containment and aggregation between same-type elements - [x] **Verification Status**: **Structurally implemented** - All 21 domain-specific properties inherit from these primitives ### 4.3 Facet System Architecture (Verified) **Three EDGY Facets**: **edgy:ExperienceFacet**: People-centric perspective - **Primary Elements**: Journey, Channel, Task - **Focus**: Stakeholder interactions and experience optimization **edgy:ArchitectureFacet**: Structure-centric perspective - **Primary Elements**: Process, Capability, Asset - **Focus**: Organizational structures and operational capabilities **edgy:IdentityFacet**: Meaning-centric perspective - **Primary Elements**: Story, Brand, Purpose - **Focus**: Organizational meaning and stakeholder perception **Intersection Elements**: - **Organization** = ArchitectureFacet ∩ IdentityFacet - **Product** = ArchitectureFacet ∩ ExperienceFacet - [x] **Verification Status**: **Axiomatically implemented** using OWL equivalence classes --- ## 5. FORMAL AXIOMS AND CONSTRAINTS (IMPLEMENTED - UNTESTED) - [x] ** Status: These axioms have been implemented in OWL ** - [ ] **Status: have NOT been tested with automated reasoners.** ### 5.1 Graph Connectivity Axioms **Axiom GC1**: Element Connectivity Requirement ``` edgy:Element rdfs:subClassOf [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ; owl:onProperty [ owl:unionOf (edgy:link edgy:flow edgy:tree) ] ; owl:minCardinality 1 ] . ``` - [x] **Status**: **Implemented** - [ ] Status: **Untested with reasoners** ### 5.2 Facet System Axioms **Axiom FS1**: Universal Facet Coverage ``` edgy:Element rdfs:subClassOf [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ; owl:onProperty edgy:viewedThrough ; owl:minCardinality 1 ] . ``` **Axiom FS2**: Organization Intersection Definition ``` edgy:Organization owl:equivalentClass [ owl:intersectionOf ( [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ; owl:onProperty edgy:viewedThrough ; owl:hasValue edgy:ArchitectureFacet ] [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ; owl:onProperty edgy:viewedThrough ; owl:hasValue edgy:IdentityFacet ] ) ] . ``` - [x] **Status**: **Implemented** - [ ] Status: **Untested with reasoners** ### 5.3 Domain-Specific Constraints **Constraint DS1**: Organization Capability Requirement ``` edgy:Organization rdfs:subClassOf [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ; owl:onProperty edgy:possesses ; owl:minCardinality 1 ] . ``` - [x] **Status**: **Implemented** - [ ] **Status: Requires validation with test data** --- ## 6. VALIDATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE - CURRENT STATUS ### 6.1 Completed Validations - [x] **Status: Structural Consistency. V**alidated   - Manual syntax checking completed   - EDGY 23 specification alignment verified   - Relationship hierarchy consistency confirmed   - Axiom syntax validation completed - [x] **Status: Conceptual Coherence** - Validated   - OntoClean principles applied (theoretical analysis)   - FBS ontology alignment verified conceptually   - Facet system completeness confirmed structurally ### 6.2 PENDING Critical Validations - [ ] **Status: Logical Consistency** - **REQUIRED**: ``` # TESTS TO BE PERFORMED hermit -c edgy.ttl # Consistency checking pellet consistency edgy.ttl # Alternative reasoner validation elk-reasoner edgy.ttl # EL reasoning validation ``` - [ ] **Status: Automated Pitfall Detection** - **REQUIRED**: ``` # OOPS! Scanner execution needed # Upload to: http://oops.linkeddata.es/ # Expected pitfalls to investigate based on structural analysis ``` - [ ] **Status: Performance Benchmarking** - **REQUIRE:** ``` # Scalability tests needed # Generate enterprise graphs: 100, 1K, 10K elements # Measure reasoning time and memory consumption # Validate query response times ``` ### 6.3 Placeholder Quality Metrics (TO BE VERIFIED) **The following metrics are ESTIMATES based on structural analysis and require empirical validation**: | Metric Category | Estimated Value | Confidence Level | ❌ Validation Required | |:-----------------------------|:-------------------|:-----------------|:------------------------| | Logical Consistency | Likely Consistent | Medium | Reasoner execution | | OOPS! Score | 7-9/10 (estimated) | Low | ❌ Automated scanning | | Competency Question Coverage | 100% (designed) | Medium | SPARQL execution | | Reasoning Performance | Unknown | None | Benchmarking | | Memory Requirements | Unknown | None | Load testing | --- ## 7. USAGE GUIDELINES AND PATTERNS (DESIGNED - UNTESTED) ### 7.1 Basic Enterprise Modeling Patterns **Pattern 1**: Organizational Capability Model ``` :acmeCorp a edgy:Organization ; edgy:possesses :salesCapability, :developmentCapability ; edgy:makes :softwareProduct ; edgy:builds :acmeBrand . :salesProcess a edgy:Process ; edgy:realizes :salesCapability ; edgy:delivers :softwareProduct ; edgy:requires :salesAsset . ``` - [x] **Status** **Syntactically valid** - [ ] Status: **Untested with real data** **Pattern 2**: Customer Journey Mapping ``` :customerJourney a edgy:Journey ; edgy:traverses :webChannel, :storeChannel ; edgy:viewedThrough edgy:ExperienceFacet . :purchaseTask a edgy:Task ; edgy:marksa :customerJourney . :softwareProduct edgy:serves :purchaseTask ; edgy:featuresIn :customerJourney . ``` - [x] **Status: C**once**ptually sound ** - [ ] **Requires validation in tools** --- ## 8. REQUIRED VALIDATION ROADMAP ### Phase 1: Automated Validation (IMMEDIATE - 1-2 weeks) **Critical Tests**: 1. **Reasoner Consistency Checking** - Execute HermiT, Pellet, ELK reasoners - Verify no logical contradictions - Document any inconsistencies found 2. **OOPS! Pitfall Analysis** - Upload ontology to automated scanner - Analyze detected pitfalls - Prioritize and address critical issues 3. **Basic SPARQL Query Testing** - Set up triple store with ontology - Execute all competency question queries - Verify syntactic correctness ### Phase 2: Performance Validation **Scalability Tests**: 1. **Load Testing** - Generate synthetic enterprise data (100, 1K, 10K elements) - Measure classification time and memory usage - Document performance characteristics 2. **Query Performance** - Benchmark competency question response times - Test complex graph traversal queries - Identify optimization requirements ### Phase 3: Domain Expert Validation **Expert Review**: 1. **Ontological Review** - Independent ontologist validation - OntoClean methodology peer review - Conceptual coherence assessment 2. **Domain Expert Review** - Enterprise architect practitioner feedback - Real-world use case validation - Alignment with enterprise design practice ### Phase 4: Tool Integration Testing **Ecosystem Validation**: 1. **Tool Compatibility** - Protégé import/export testing - SPARQL endpoint deployment - Visualization tool integration 2. **Real-World Pilot** - Small enterprise modeling pilot project - Practitioner usability assessment - Documentation refinement --- ## 9. STANDARDS COMPLIANCE AND INTEROPERABILITY ### 9.1 W3C Standards Compliance **OWL 2 Compliance**: - [x] **Status: Structurally implemented** - [ ] **Status: Untested with validators**   - **OWL 2 EL Profile**: Designed for but requires validation   - **RDF(S) Compatibility**: Implemented but untested   - **SPARQL Support**: Designed for but requires testing **Metadata Standards**: - [x] **Status: Implemented**   - **Dublin Core Terms**: Complete metadata using DC Terms vocabulary   - **SKOS Core**: Selected integration (edgy:Purpose) ### 9.2 Enterprise Architecture Standards (THEORETICAL) - [ ] **ArchiMate 3.1 Alignment**: **REQUIRES FORMAL MAPPING VALIDATION**   - Conceptual alignment identified   - Formal transformation rules needed   - Tool interoperability testing required - [ ] **BPMN 2.0 Integration**: **REQUIRES VALIDATION**   - Process elements theoretically compatible   - Mapping validation needed --- ## 10. KNOWN LIMITATIONS AND RISKS ### 10.1 Technical Risks **Reasoning Performance**: Untested axiom complexity may cause performance issues with large enterprise models. **Tool Compatibility**: Complex OWL constructs may not be supported by all enterprise architecture tools. **Scalability**: Graph connectivity constraints may not scale to enterprise-wide models. ### 10.2 Methodological Limitations **Expert Validation Gap**: Ontology has not been reviewed by independent domain experts. **Real-World Testing Gap**: No validation with actual enterprise data or use cases. **User Acceptance Unknown**: Accessibility to target user community unverified. ### 10.3 Conceptual Risks **Over-Engineering**: Formal axioms may be unnecessarily complex for practical enterprise design. **Philosophical Tensions**: Graph-theoretic approach may conflict with traditional enterprise architecture thinking. --- ## 11. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS ### 11.1 Current Status This DRAFT specification provides a solid conceptual foundation for the EDGY ontology with: - Complete structural implementation - EDGY 23 specification alignment - Formal axiomatization (untested) - Methodological rigor (theoretical) ### 11.2 Critical Next Steps **Before Production Use**: 1. Complete automated validation suite (Phase 1) 2. Perform scalability and performance testing (Phase 2) 3. Obtain independent expert validation (Phase 3) 4. Conduct real-world pilot testing (Phase 4) ### 11.3 Expected Timeline **Validation Complete**: 3-6 months **Production Ready**: 6-12 months **Community Adoption**: 12-24 months --- ## 12. REFERENCES ### 12.1 Primary Sources 1. Intersection Group. "EDGY 23: Language Foundations." Open Source Enterprise Design Framework, 2023. 2. Gero, J.S. "Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design." AI Magazine, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 26-36, 1990. 3. Keet, C. Maria. "An Introduction to Ontology Engineering." College Publications, London, 2018. ### 12.2 Standards and Specifications 1. W3C OWL Working Group. "OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Document Overview (Second Edition)." W3C Recommendation, December 2012. 2. The Open Group. "ArchiMate 3.1 Specification." The Open Group Standard, 2019. ### 12.3 Methodological References 1. Suárez-Figueroa, M.C., Gómez-Pérez, A., Fernández-López, M. "The NeON Methodology framework: A scenario-based methodology for ontology development." Applied Ontology, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 107-145, 2015. 2. Poveda-Villalón, M., Gómez-Pérez, A., Suárez-Figueroa, M.C. "OOPS! (OntOlogy Pitfall Scanner!): An On-line Tool for Ontology Validation." International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 7-34, 2014. --- **Document Status**: **DRAFT SPECIFICATION** **Validation Status**: **STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS COMPLETE - EMPIRICAL VALIDATION PENDING** **Production Readiness**: **NOT READY - VALIDATION REQUIRED** **Contact**: sacha@omyn.ai **Repository**: https://gitea/omyn.ai/schema/ontolEDGY-draft **⚠️ DISCLAIMER**: This ontology specification is a draft that requires comprehensive validation before production deployment. Use at your own risk for experimental purposes only.