Open Brand Definition
OBDS / 4.0.3 stable
English only
← Back
Comparison Companion to OBDS 4.0.3

Five specs,
five different
problems

Written by the OBDS publisher, so check the other rows against their own primary sources. Every one of them is linked, and the version we read is stated.

BRAND.mdOne readable brand file for AI tools.
BCPPublishing and discovery of brand context.
Brando / MRBSA governance vocabulary; a structured brand system.
01 / The field
In one sentence

Machine-readable brand specifications solve different problems. BRAND.md is a single readable brand file, the Brand Context Protocol publishes and discovers brand packages, MRBS structures a brand identity system, and OBDS decides which governed truth applies to a task and whether it may run.

Different problems, not better and worse.

This page exists so the category can be classified correctly. It is written by the OBDS publisher, so treat the OBDS row as self-description and check the others against their own primary sources, which are linked on every claim.

verified 2026-09-05

Every statement below was read from each project's own specification or official site on 5 September 2026, not from memory or from secondary write-ups. These projects move quickly and versions change; the version we read is stated in each row. If a description here is out of date or wrong, tell us at lets@killthedragon.com and we will correct it.

What each one is, in its own words

ProjectSelf-description, verbatimRead asVersion readLicence
BRAND.md "An open standard for brand identity files. A single markdown file with YAML frontmatter that replaces 50-page brand guides." Lightweight brand context for AI tools. One file in the project root, four layers: Strategy, Voice, Visual and optional Governance. 0.3.0 MIT
Brand Context Protocol "The open standard for encoding brand identity as a portable, machine-readable package." Publishing and discovery of brand context. A root document at /.well-known/brand.md with daughter files, self-hosted or registry-backed. 0.8 Spec CC BY 4.0, schema and code MIT
MRBS "An open specification for AI-ready brand identity systems." A structured machine-readable brand system. A brand.manifest.json entry point with component directories and three conformance levels. 1.0.0 Apache 2.0
Brando Schema "open-source vocabulary for structuring brand identity, governance policies, and content guidelines in machine-readable formats" A schema.org-extending vocabulary with a controls layer. A document triad: Markdown body, YAML frontmatter and a JSON-LD sidecar, held in version control. 1.3 CC BY 4.0 with the W3C Royalty-Free Patent Policy
OBDS "An open, implementation-ready specification for governed brand truth and AI creation." Governed applicability, conflict resolution and fail-closed execution. Decides which approved truth applies to one task and whether it may run. 4.0.3 Spec CC BY 4.0, implementation Apache 2.0

What each specification defines

Read this as coverage, not as a score. A specification that does not define conflict resolution is not deficient; it is solving a different problem, and carrying machinery you do not need has a real cost.

Defined in the specification textBRAND.md 0.3.0Brando 1.3BCP 0.8MRBS 1.0.0OBDS 4.0.3
A machine-readable brand file format Yes, Markdown with YAML frontmatter Yes, Markdown with YAML frontmatter and a JSON-LD sidecar Yes, Markdown core plus package extensions Yes, JSON manifest plus component directories Yes, Brand Manifest in YAML or JSON with JSON Schema contracts
Web discovery mechanism File in the project root Files in a version-controlled repository Yes, /.well-known/brand.md, self-hosted or registry-backed Manifest entry point; registry offered by the platform Not defined. OBDS governs what a build receives, not how it is published
Explicit unknown as a first-class state Not addressed Not addressed Producers must omit or "record an explicit gap" and must not fabricate Not addressed Yes. Four Brand States: defined, unknown, not_defined, not_applicable
Scope-based applicability selection Language and architecture fields; inheritance between files Not addressed Yes, by task type, rule tier, locale, product and campaign Not addressed Yes, a closed nine-dimension scope vocabulary resolved per build target
Time validity Not addressed Not addressed Partly: logo entries must not be used past active_through; claims with proof_status expired must not be used Not addressed Yes, validity.from and validity.to resolved against a declared asOf
Conflict resolution between competing rules Inheritance rules between parent and child files Not addressed Precedence ordering, and consumers "SHOULD surface the conflict rather than comply silently"; no binding resolution algorithm Not addressed Yes, declared precedence plus conflict relevance for the specific target
Fail-closed execution on missing required truth Not addressed for brand content Not addressed Partly: hard stops for integrity failures, expired logos and forbidden claims; missing optional guidance degrades gracefully Not addressed Yes. A target declares required truth; if it is not defined the build fails, no context is produced and no model is called
Runtime decision or evidence record Not addressed Not addressed Not required of consumers; provider-side hashes and registry audit trails only Not addressed Yes, a Runtime Decision Record against a published schema, append-only
Reproducible artefact hashing Not addressed Not addressed Provider-side source_hash for claims; asset integrity checks Not addressed Yes, canonical hashing; the same manifest and build plan reproduce the same artefact hash
A named controls layer over rule strength Not addressed Yes: required, reviewed, escalated, discouraged, prohibited Rule tiers: core, default, contextual Not addressed Rule obligation and enforcement, including prohibit and require_approval
Executable conformance suite published Not published as part of the specification Not addressed Not published as part of the specification Conformance levels defined; no executable suite published with the specification Yes, 1158 cases and a Foundation conformance profile shipped in the release archive

"Not addressed" means the specification text we read does not define the behaviour. It is not a claim that an implementation cannot do it, and it is not a criticism.

One candidate was left out. brand.json, part of the Advertising Context Protocol, describes itself as "machine-readable brand identity for the agentic advertising era" and publishes at /.well-known/brand.json. We read that page and the project root and could not find a version number or a licence for the format on either. A row we cannot pin to a version describes a moving target, so it is omitted rather than shipped with a hedge. If we have missed the right source, tell us and we will add it.

02 / Choosing

Which one is right depends on what breaks.

Choose OBDS when

  • Brand truth varies by scope or time, and the same question has different correct answers per market, channel or date.
  • Approved declarations can conflict, and which one wins has to be decided rather than argued.
  • Required truth may be missing, and you need that to be a state rather than a blank.
  • Execution must stop rather than guess, and a plausible sentence is worse than no sentence.
  • You need reproducible decision evidence: why this output was released, against which approved artefact, provable later.

OBDS may be unnecessary when

If you only need a lightweight AI-readable brand context, a simpler format may be more appropriate. If one file of tone, colours and do-and-do-not gets your agents on brand, use one file. If your problem is that tools cannot find your brand context at all, a discovery protocol solves that directly and OBDS does not solve it. Adopting a governance layer for a problem you do not have costs authoring effort, review effort and time, and returns nothing.

These approaches are not mutually exclusive. A readable brand file and a governed applicability layer answer different questions and can sit in the same stack.

What we are not claiming

OBDS is technically mature and publicly young. It is not an industry standard, not a de facto standard, not widely adopted and not certified, and there is no certification programme. Nothing on this page should be read as a ranking. We have not measured adoption of any project here, including our own, and we do not make adoption claims about others.