CRUP-OMAF Hybrid Rubric

Full Draft (v0.1)

Scoring Scale

1 – Very Weak
2 – Weak
3 – Moderate
4 – Strong
5 – Exceptional

Axis I — Completeness

1. Grounding

Does the ontology clearly state its foundational principle(s)?

Score Description
1 No clear foundation; vague or assumed.
2 Foundation stated but poorly defined or inconsistent.
3 Clear basis with some unresolved assumptions.
4 Well-defined, coherent grounding; explicitly justified.
5 Foundational principle is clear, justified, and integrated into all aspects.

2. Manifestation

How well does it explain how being appears/operates?

Score Description
1 No account of manifestation.
2 Minimal description; lacks operational clarity.
3 Adequate description; works for central cases.
4 Clear, detailed account covering core and edge cases.
5 Comprehensive, precise, and operationally testable.

3. Persistence

Why does the domain endure or recur?

Score Description
1 No explanation for persistence.
2 Ad hoc or context-specific persistence.
3 General mechanism proposed; partly justified.
4 Well-supported mechanism; explains stability/change.
5 Robust, widely applicable persistence mechanism, integrated with grounding & manifestation.

4. Boundaries

Are the limits of the domain defined and respected?

Score Description
1 No boundaries; applies everywhere by fiat.
2 Boundaries implied but vague or shifting.
3 Clear boundaries with some ambiguities.
4 Well-defined, justified boundaries; mostly respected.
5 Boundaries explicit, justified, operationalized; consistently respected.

Axis II — Robustness

1. Internal Coherence

Score Description
1 Contradictory or self-defeating.
2 Mostly coherent but with major gaps.
3 Generally coherent; minor inconsistencies.
4 Consistent, with clear definitions.
5 Fully coherent; definitions precise, no contradictions.

2. Domain Validity

Score Description
1 Fails on many domain cases.
2 Works only for narrow subset.
3 Handles central cases; some edge case failures.
4 Works for most cases, including challenging ones.
5 Universally applicable within domain.

3. Objectivity / Reflexivity

Score Description
1 No awareness of own assumptions.
2 Limited awareness; ignores implications.
3 Acknowledges some assumptions; partially self-applicable.
4 Explicit about assumptions; applies reflexively.
5 Fully self-aware and reflexive; withstands multiple perspectives.

4. Explanatory Power

Score Description
1 Explains little or nothing.
2 Explains some aspects; lacks depth.
3 Adequate explanatory coverage.
4 Explains well, with rich insight.
5 Explains comprehensively; unifies diverse phenomena.

5. Resilience to Critique

Score Description
1 Collapses under basic critique.
2 Responds weakly to most critiques.
3 Handles some critiques effectively.
4 Responds to most critiques; adapts constructively.
5 Anticipates, integrates, and strengthens from critique.

Axis III — Pragmatic Usefulness

1. Operational Clarity

Score Description
1 No guidance for action/inquiry.
2 Minimal guidance; vague steps.
3 Some guidance; works for simple tasks.
4 Clear guidance; works for complex tasks.
5 Highly actionable; readily implementable.

2. Integrability

Score Description
1 Incompatible with other models/disciplines.
2 Limited integration possible.
3 Some integration; needs adaptation.
4 Integrates smoothly with others.
5 Highly interoperable; enhances other models.

3. Heuristic Utility

Score Description
1 No new tools/concepts provided.
2 Few tools; limited usefulness.
3 Some useful concepts/tools.
4 Rich set of tools; widely applicable.
5 Exceptional heuristic value; generates new lines of inquiry.

Axis IV — Transformative Potential

1. Cognitive Shift

Score Description
1 No change in perspective.
2 Slight change; low impact.
3 Moderate perspective shift.
4 Significant change in thinking.
5 Profound, lasting shift in worldview.

2. Experiential Depth

Score Description
1 No change in lived experience.
2 Minimal impact on experience.
3 Some deepening of engagement.
4 Strong deepening of experience.
5 Radically deepens and enriches experience.

3. Generativity

Score Description
1 Generates no new interpretations.
2 Rarely sparks new ideas.
3 Occasionally generates new interpretations/models.
4 Frequently sparks new interpretations/models.
5 Exceptionally fertile; spawns new frameworks or practices.
Note: Acknowledgements The OMAF rubric draws conceptual inspiration from Toulmin’s model of argumentation, philosophical theory-appraisal frameworks (Lakatos, Thagard, Kuhn), and ontology evaluation methods in knowledge engineering (Gruber’s criteria, OntoClean, competency questions, OBO/FAIR principles). While OMAF is an original synthesis intended for universal application to accounts of being across any domain, it builds upon these prior contributions in both spirit and scope.
Last updated: 2026-03-01
License: JIML v.1