ODPS ≠ ODPS: Why Your Data Product Strategy Needs Both

One ODPS makes data products visible, the other makes them reliable. Together they unlock scalable ecosystems.

This is part of my Unpopular thought series where I take a closer look at things that most people prefer to gloss over. Today it is about acronyms, governance, and the sometimes messy state of data standards. If you think ODPS is a single clear specification, think again.

ODPS vs Bitol ODPS – Clarifying Perspectives in the Data Ecosystem

The world of data standards has never been short of complexity. Over the past few years several initiatives have emerged to bring order to the way data products are defined and exchanged. Among these efforts two names cause recurring confusion. Both are called ODPS, but they represent different approaches and communities. On the one side there is the Open Data Product Specification that was originally launched by the Open Data Products community and is now governed by the Linux Foundation. On the other side there is the Open Data Product Standard which is being developed within the Bitol initiative, also under the Linux Foundation AI and Data umbrella.

At first sight it might seem as if the two are competing or even duplicating work. Yet when looking more closely it becomes clear that they approach the same problem space from different perspectives and for different audiences.

The “Original” ODPS – Open Data Product Specification

The “original” ODPS, the Open Data Product Specification, is designed with an outward looking perspective. Its main goal is to make data products discoverable, comparable and usable across organizations. It is a metadata driven specification that allows data products to be described in a consistent and machine readable way. The focus is on business level metadata such as descriptions, ownership, pricing models and compliance. It also integrates well with existing ecosystems through the use of schema.org and other well known metadata frameworks.

For organisations that want to publish data products into catalogs or marketplaces this specification offers a standard vocabulary and structure. From an inward perspective it provides teams with templates and reusable models for describing their products, but its true strength lies in making products interoperable across boundaries.

The Bitol ODPS – Open Data Product Standard

The Bitol ODPS, in contrast, comes with a more inward oriented starting point. It is tightly connected to the Open Data Contract Standard (ODCS) that Bitol also maintains. This standard defines the contracts for data exchange, including schemas, quality rules and service level agreements. Building on this contract foundation the Bitol ODPS defines the structure of data products that embed those contracts. It includes ownership, lifecycle information, a software bill of materials and governance metadata.

From the inward perspective this approach supports product thinking within delivery teams. It enables pipelines that are aware of contracts and governance rules from the start. From the outward perspective the Bitol ODPS ensures that products can be trusted and reused since the contracts are enforceable and transparent. It aligns closely with the FAIR principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability.

Two Perspectives, One Confusion

The confusion arises because both initiatives share the acronym ODPS while serving different purposes. The Open Data Product Specification is business and ecosystem oriented while the Bitol Open Data Product Standard is more technical and governance focused. They overlap in their ambition to make data products reusable and trustworthy but differ in their entry points. The specification begins from the outside in, emphasising discoverability and monetisation, whereas the standard begins from the inside out, emphasising enforceable contracts and delivery pipelines.

A key difference is the role of ODCS. In the Bitol view ODCS is a mandatory foundation that every data product must build upon. In the specification view ODCS or other contract standards can be embedded but they are optional. This illustrates the strategic difference between the two. Bitol prioritises enforceability and governance while the specification prioritises openness and ecosystem wide interoperability.

What This Means for Teams and Organisations

From the perspective of teams building and operating platforms the Bitol ODPS may feel more actionable. It connects directly to engineering practices and automation. From the perspective of organisations trying to expose their data products to partners or to a wider market the Open Data Product Specification offers the richer ecosystem story. Both perspectives are important. Without contracts and governance data products are fragile. Without metadata and discoverability data products remain invisible.

Outlook

Looking ahead the question is whether the two standards will converge or continue in parallel. Convergence would bring clarity but requires alignment of communities that currently focus on different priorities. Coexistence seems more realistic in the near term. Organisations may find themselves using both. Bitol ODPS to govern data products internally and the Open Data Product Specification to publish them externally. The risk is that ongoing confusion around the acronym slows adoption. The opportunity is that together they form a layered approach that connects inward technical rigor with outward business interoperability.

Conclusion

The conclusion is that it is less about choosing one standard over the other and more about understanding where each fits. The Open Data Product Specification provides the language and metadata for external exposure. The Bitol Open Data Product Standard provides the enforceable governance and integration with contracts. Together they can help organis

ations build data ecosystems that are not only technically reliable but also business ready.