| 1 | ontology: |
| 2 | id: property-business-ontology |
| 3 | title: Australian Property Investment, Accommodation and Operations Ontology |
| 4 | ontology_iri: https://ontology.property.local/pbo |
| 5 | base_iri: "https://ontology.property.local/pbo#" |
| 6 | prefix: pbo |
| 7 | version: 0.1.0 |
| 8 | status: release_candidate |
| 9 | created: "2026-09-14" |
| 10 | modified: "2026-09-14" |
| 11 | creator: Ryan Ballantyne |
| 12 | licence: CC-BY-4.0 |
| 13 | description: > |
| 14 | An evidence-first ontology derived from the property-pages corpus (31 scraped |
| 15 | web sources, seven category syntheses, seven combined source references and two |
| 16 | deep-research reports, all compiled 14 September 2026). It models property |
| 17 | assets and their identifiers, the parties and roles involved in owning, leasing, |
| 18 | operating and managing residential and commercial accommodation, the agreements |
| 19 | that bind them, the accommodation and operating models (rooming houses, HMOs, |
| 20 | rent-to-rent/master leasing, coliving, corporate leasing, dual-income property, |
| 21 | single- and multi-tenant commercial leasing), ownership structures, investment |
| 22 | strategies, the Australian regulatory regimes that gate them (planning, building |
| 23 | classification, fire safety, tenancy law, residential-service registration and |
| 24 | rooming-house licensing, tax), business planning artefacts, financial scenarios |
| 25 | and metrics, risks and mitigations, property-management operations, agency |
| 26 | business models, and the open/licensed data sources that describe properties. |
| 27 | |
| 28 | intended_use: |
| 29 | primary: ai_grounding |
| 30 | secondary: [retrieval_cataloguing, integration, validation] |
| 31 | notes: > |
| 32 | The corpus is a research library assembled to support decisions about an |
| 33 | Australian (primarily South East Queensland and Greater Melbourne) property |
| 34 | investment, development, rooming-accommodation and leasing business. The |
| 35 | ontology is intended to ground AI assistants and a future property-intelligence |
| 36 | platform in a shared, source-traceable vocabulary, to catalogue claims by |
| 37 | source and jurisdiction, and to validate structured records (scenarios, |
| 38 | agreements, authorisations) with SHACL. Full OWL DL reasoning is a secondary |
| 39 | concern; the ontology stays within OWL 2 DL but does not depend on entailment |
| 40 | to answer its core competency questions. |
| 41 | |
| 42 | audience: |
| 43 | - property investor / developer / accommodation operator (project owner) |
| 44 | - application developers building a property intelligence platform |
| 45 | - AI assistants answering questions grounded in the corpus |
| 46 | - advisers reviewing feasibility, compliance and planning documents |
| 47 | |
| 48 | scope: |
| 49 | breadth: > |
| 50 | Residential and small commercial property investment and accommodation |
| 51 | operations in Australia, with jurisdiction-specific detail for Queensland |
| 52 | (South East Queensland, Brisbane, Logan) and Victoria (Greater Melbourne), |
| 53 | plus generic business-planning, property-management and business-model |
| 54 | concepts drawn from Australian and international sources. |
| 55 | depth: > |
| 56 | Deep enough to distinguish accommodation types, operating models, agreement |
| 57 | types, regulatory regimes and their occupancy thresholds, ownership structures, |
| 58 | financial scenario assumptions and metrics, and the source/authority of every |
| 59 | claim. Not deep enough to encode statutory text, planning-scheme codes, |
| 60 | tax computations or building-code clauses. |
| 61 | inclusions: |
| 62 | - property assets (land parcels, dwellings, rooms, commercial premises) and their identifiers (address, lot/plan, title reference, cadastral parcel) |
| 63 | - parties (persons, organisations, government bodies) and the context-dependent roles they bear (owner, investor, operator, resident/tenant, property manager, lender, insurer, regulator, council, developer, adviser) |
| 64 | - agreements between parties (residential tenancy, rooming accommodation agreement, head/master lease, sublease, management agreement, corporate lease, commercial lease, co-tenancy clause) and the risk allocation each creates |
| 65 | - accommodation types and operating models (single-lease rental, room-by-room / rooming house / HMO, coliving, rent-to-rent / master lease, revenue-share / management, ownership, hybrid/franchise, corporate leasing, short-stay, dual-income configurations, single- vs multi-tenant commercial) |
| 66 | - investment strategies and ownership structures (individual, joint tenants, tenants in common, discretionary trust, unit trust, company, SMSF) and their stated tax/legal characteristics |
| 67 | - regulatory regimes and authorisations (planning use approval, building classification, fire-safety compliance, residential-service registration and accreditation in QLD, rooming-house operator licence and council registration in VIC, tenancy-law application, short-stay levy) with jurisdiction, governing legislation, regulator and occupancy thresholds |
| 68 | - tax classifications (rental investment vs rental business vs profit-making undertaking; GST input-taxed vs commercial residential; negative gearing and CGT regime changes with effective dates) |
| 69 | - business-planning information artefacts (business plan, project plan, feasibility study, information memorandum, financial model, risk register, implementation schedule) and their required sections |
| 70 | - financial scenarios, assumptions and metrics (gross/net yield, NOI, cash-on-cash, IRR, occupancy, economic vacancy, RevPAR, CAC, EBITDA/EBITDAR, DSCR, LVR, break-even occupancy) |
| 71 | - risks, mitigations and decision gates for strategies, operating models and development projects |
| 72 | - property-management business operations (services, fee models, workflows, KPIs, trust accounting, portals, scale thresholds) |
| 73 | - real-estate agency business models and innovation constructs (franchise, cooperative, joint venture, boutique, independent; open innovation; resource strategy) |
| 74 | - property data sources and datasets (open authoritative, public paid, commercial, first-party, derived) and the attributes and identifiers they supply |
| 75 | - source provenance for every claim, including authority, jurisdiction and currency |
| 76 | exclusions: |
| 77 | - statutory text, planning-scheme codes, building-code clauses and tax legislation are referenced as named instruments only; their internal structure and computation rules are out of scope |
| 78 | - residential conveyancing and title transfer mechanics |
| 79 | - construction methods, building materials and engineering design |
| 80 | - personal financial or legal advice, credit assessment rules and lender product catalogues |
| 81 | - market statistics as a time series; specific quoted figures are kept as evidence records and fixture values, not modelled as an observational data cube |
| 82 | - Spanish and other non-Australian legal regimes (only referenced as out-of-jurisdiction source context) |
| 83 | - property sales/marketing content, website navigation, promotional pricing and vendor product features |
| 84 | - strata / owners-corporation governance beyond the recorded short-stay restriction power |
| 85 | - human-resources, payroll and general accounting practice for property businesses |
| 86 | |
| 87 | interoperability: |
| 88 | required: false |
| 89 | target_ecosystems: |
| 90 | - internal property-intelligence platform (PostgreSQL/PostGIS property master described in SRC-202) |
| 91 | - future alignment candidates recorded in model.yaml mappings (schema.org, W3C ORG, PROV-O, SKOS, Dublin Core, GeoSPARQL, OWL-Time) but no import is asserted |
| 92 | notes: > |
| 93 | External vocabularies are reused by IRI reference only (PROV-O, SKOS, Dublin |
| 94 | Core Terms). schema.org / W3C ORG / GeoSPARQL alignments are recorded as |
| 95 | candidate mappings with skos:closeMatch or annotation strength; no owl:equivalentClass |
| 96 | is asserted because definitions were not compared against pinned versions. |
| 97 | |
| 98 | standards: |
| 99 | rdf: "1.1" |
| 100 | turtle: "1.1" |
| 101 | rdfs: "1.1" |
| 102 | owl: "2 DL" |
| 103 | owl_profile_rationale: > |
| 104 | OWL 2 DL is used because the ontology needs disjointness, inverse properties, |
| 105 | functional data properties and a small number of existential restrictions on |
| 106 | event/agreement classes. No construct exceeds DL and the ontology deliberately |
| 107 | avoids nominals and complex property chains so it stays within EL-friendly |
| 108 | territory for most classes. |
| 109 | skos: "2009" |
| 110 | shacl: "2017" |
| 111 | sparql: "1.1" |
| 112 | prov: "PROV-O 2013" |
| 113 | |
| 114 | competency_questions: |
| 115 | - id: CQ-001 |
| 116 | question: > |
| 117 | Which regulatory authorisations (planning approval, building classification, |
| 118 | fire-safety compliance, registration, licence, accreditation) does a given |
| 119 | accommodation operating model require in a given jurisdiction, and which |
| 120 | legislation and regulator govern each authorisation? |
| 121 | priority: core |
| 122 | purpose: compliance_grounding |
| 123 | status: active |
| 124 | expected_answer_shape: rows of (operatingModel, jurisdiction, authorisationType, legislation, regulator) |
| 125 | - id: CQ-002 |
| 126 | question: > |
| 127 | What occupancy or size threshold (number of residents, rooms, bedrooms or floor |
| 128 | area) triggers or exempts a regulatory regime in a given jurisdiction? |
| 129 | priority: core |
| 130 | purpose: compliance_grounding |
| 131 | status: active |
| 132 | expected_answer_shape: rows of (regime, jurisdiction, thresholdKind, thresholdValue, effect) |
| 133 | - id: CQ-003 |
| 134 | question: > |
| 135 | Under a given agreement (head/master lease, sublease, management agreement, |
| 136 | corporate lease, commercial lease), which party bears which role, who carries |
| 137 | fixed rent and vacancy risk, and who is responsible for outgoings? |
| 138 | priority: core |
| 139 | purpose: risk_allocation |
| 140 | status: active |
| 141 | expected_answer_shape: rows of (agreement, agreementType, party, role, riskOrObligation) |
| 142 | - id: CQ-004 |
| 143 | question: > |
| 144 | For a given financial scenario, what assumptions (rooms, tariff, vacancy, |
| 145 | operating-expense ratio, leverage, interest rate, growth) were used and what |
| 146 | metric values (NOI, cash flow, cash-on-cash, IRR) resulted? |
| 147 | priority: core |
| 148 | purpose: feasibility_grounding |
| 149 | status: active |
| 150 | expected_answer_shape: rows of (scenario, assumptionMetric, assumptionValue, resultMetric, resultValue) |
| 151 | - id: CQ-005 |
| 152 | question: > |
| 153 | Which ownership structures are described for property investment and what |
| 154 | tax, liability, distribution and estate characteristics does each carry? |
| 155 | priority: core |
| 156 | purpose: structuring_grounding |
| 157 | status: active |
| 158 | expected_answer_shape: rows of (ownershipStructure, characteristic, source) |
| 159 | - id: CQ-006 |
| 160 | question: > |
| 161 | Which investment strategies does the corpus describe, and which accommodation |
| 162 | type, operating model and tenant segment does each rely on? |
| 163 | priority: core |
| 164 | purpose: strategy_catalogue |
| 165 | status: active |
| 166 | expected_answer_shape: rows of (strategy, accommodationType, operatingModel, tenantSegment) |
| 167 | - id: CQ-007 |
| 168 | question: > |
| 169 | Which risks apply to a given strategy, operating model or development project, |
| 170 | and what mitigation or decision gate is recorded for each? |
| 171 | priority: core |
| 172 | purpose: risk_register |
| 173 | status: active |
| 174 | expected_answer_shape: rows of (subject, risk, riskCategory, mitigation) |
| 175 | - id: CQ-008 |
| 176 | question: > |
| 177 | Which sections must a business-planning artefact (business plan, feasibility |
| 178 | study, information memorandum) contain according to which source? |
| 179 | priority: supporting |
| 180 | purpose: document_template_grounding |
| 181 | status: active |
| 182 | expected_answer_shape: rows of (artefactType, section, source) |
| 183 | - id: CQ-009 |
| 184 | question: > |
| 185 | Which data sources supply which property attributes or identifiers for a |
| 186 | jurisdiction, under what access tier, refresh cadence and licence? |
| 187 | priority: core |
| 188 | purpose: data_integration |
| 189 | status: active |
| 190 | expected_answer_shape: rows of (dataSource, publisher, attribute, accessTier, refresh) |
| 191 | - id: CQ-010 |
| 192 | question: > |
| 193 | Which lease types allocate which outgoings (taxes, insurance, maintenance, |
| 194 | common-area costs) to the landlord versus the tenant? |
| 195 | priority: supporting |
| 196 | purpose: commercial_leasing |
| 197 | status: active |
| 198 | expected_answer_shape: rows of (leaseType, outgoing, bearer) |
| 199 | - id: CQ-011 |
| 200 | question: > |
| 201 | Which sources make a quantitative claim about a given metric (for example |
| 202 | rooming-house gross yield), with what value, basis, authority level, |
| 203 | jurisdiction and date? |
| 204 | priority: core |
| 205 | purpose: provenance_and_conflict |
| 206 | status: active |
| 207 | expected_answer_shape: rows of (claim, metric, value, source, authority, jurisdiction, date) |
| 208 | - id: CQ-012 |
| 209 | question: > |
| 210 | Which tax rules or incentives apply to which property class from which |
| 211 | effective date, and which grandfathering cut-off applies? |
| 212 | priority: supporting |
| 213 | purpose: temporal_tax_grounding |
| 214 | status: active |
| 215 | expected_answer_shape: rows of (rule, propertyClass, effectiveFrom, cutoffDate) |
| 216 | - id: CQ-013 |
| 217 | question: > |
| 218 | Which services does a property-management business provide, under what fee |
| 219 | model, and which workflows and KPIs support them? |
| 220 | priority: supporting |
| 221 | purpose: operations_grounding |
| 222 | status: active |
| 223 | expected_answer_shape: rows of (service, feeModel, workflow, kpi) |
| 224 | - id: CQ-014 |
| 225 | question: > |
| 226 | Which real-estate agency business-model structures exist and how does each |
| 227 | source its capabilities (internally controlled versus externally accessed)? |
| 228 | priority: supporting |
| 229 | purpose: business_model_catalogue |
| 230 | status: active |
| 231 | expected_answer_shape: rows of (agencyModel, capabilitySourcing) |
| 232 | - id: CQ-015 |
| 233 | question: > |
| 234 | Which properties in a portfolio have a lawful-use authorisation that is |
| 235 | missing, pending or expired for their intended operating model? |
| 236 | priority: supporting |
| 237 | purpose: validation |
| 238 | status: active |
| 239 | expected_answer_shape: rows of (property, operatingModel, missingAuthorisationType) |
| 240 | |
| 241 | release_policy: |
| 242 | require_all_core_cqs: true |
| 243 | require_annotation_coverage: 1.0 |
| 244 | require_evidence_coverage: 1.0 |
| 245 | require_external_reasoner: false |
| 246 | require_shacl_engine: true |
| 247 | shacl_inference: rdfs |
| 248 | shacl_engine_note: > |
| 249 | SHACL execution is required because shapes.ttl carries operational validation |
| 250 | for scenarios, agreements and authorisations. pySHACL conformed on 2026-09-14 |
| 251 | with RDFS inference, using ontology.ttl and taxonomy.ttl as the ontology graph. |
| 252 |