When I wrote this sentence, I meant to say “there’s got to be others”, not “I know there are others but I won’t tell you what they are”. I don’t know for sure of any other, because the domain I focus on is IT systems. I don’t know enough about the use cases of other domains (medical, mechanical, intelligence, etc) to assert that some important requirements there would be met by the CMDBf metamodel. But the core of the metamodel (items and relationships, each with records attached to them) doesn’t seem to have anything IT-specific attached to it. The idea of a rich relationship framework between “key” entities combined with records for in-depth data about each entity just seems broadly applicable. But all I know for sure is that I know it is for IT systems. I’d be happy to hear about other domains.

Thanks for an interesting post. I wonder if you might elaborate some on your point that: “I am pretty sure there are other domains, beyond IT systems, for which this would be useful.”

I think that there is generally great need to better integrate the various modeling forms: semi-structured and other forms of information; your thoughts piqued curiosity.

Thanks,
Erik