Cross-Framework Mapping

DAMA-DMBOK2 — Data Management Body of Knowledge (2nd Edition)vsEN 301 549 — ICT Accessibility Requirements

See exactly how DAMA-DMBOK2 — Data Management Body of Knowledge (2nd Edition) controls map to EN 301 549 — ICT Accessibility Requirements. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

2
Controls Mapped
19
Gaps Found
10%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

DAMA-DMBOK2 — Data Management Body of Knowledge (2nd Edition) maps to EN 301 549 — ICT Accessibility Requirements with 10% coverage across 2 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 21 DAMA-DMBOK2 — Data Management Body of Knowledge (2nd Edition) controls identifies 19 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Data Ethics and Maturity.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 21 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 2 of 2 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Data Integration, Quality and Metadata(1 mappings)

DIQ-1Data Integration and Interoperability
EN301549-11.5Interoperability with Assistive Technology

Data Storage, Operations and Security(1 mappings)

DSO-3Data Access Management
EN301549-5.3Biometrics

Related Comparisons

Other DAMA-DMBOK2 — Data Management Body of Knowledge (2nd Edition) comparisons

Other EN 301 549 — ICT Accessibility Requirements comparisons

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • 693 framework browser
  • Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
  • 824 compliance assessments
  • 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$49/month

Professional

  • Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
  • Unlimited full-text search
  • Framework self-assessment
  • PDF, Excel & CSV exports
Start 7-Day Free Trial →

What are the key differences between DAMA-DMBOK2 — Data Management Body of Knowledge (2nd Edition) and EN 301 549 — ICT Accessibility Requirements?

DAMA-DMBOK2 — Data Management Body of Knowledge (2nd Edition) has 21 controls across its framework, while EN 301 549 — ICT Accessibility Requirements covers 30 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 2 overlapping controls (10% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Data Ethics and Maturity, where 3 DAMA-DMBOK2 — Data Management Body of Knowledge (2nd Edition) controls have no direct EN 301 549 — ICT Accessibility Requirements equivalent.

How many controls map between DAMA-DMBOK2 — Data Management Body of Knowledge (2nd Edition) and EN 301 549 — ICT Accessibility Requirements?

Of 21 total DAMA-DMBOK2 — Data Management Body of Knowledge (2nd Edition) controls, 2 map directly to EN 301 549 — ICT Accessibility Requirements controls — representing 10% coverage. The remaining 19 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping DAMA-DMBOK2 — Data Management Body of Knowledge (2nd Edition) to EN 301 549 — ICT Accessibility Requirements?

19 DAMA-DMBOK2 — Data Management Body of Knowledge (2nd Edition) controls have no direct equivalent in EN 301 549 — ICT Accessibility Requirements. The highest concentration of gaps is in Data Ethics and Maturity with 3 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.

Which control domains have the most gaps between DAMA-DMBOK2 — Data Management Body of Knowledge (2nd Edition) and EN 301 549 — ICT Accessibility Requirements?

The domain with the highest gap count is Data Ethics and Maturity (3 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.