The distinction between ontic and epistemic interpretations of physical theories (due to Scheibe) is useful to distinguish between different kinds of realism. Broadly speaking, epistemic interpretations refer to open systems as they are empirically accessible in the sense of conventional engineering science -- the domain of empirical, local realism. Ontic interpretations refer to closed systems which are empirically inaccessible in principle -- the domain to which quantum holism applies, giving rise to an independent, context-free, holistic realism. By definition, the acts of observation and measurement are crucial elements to connect those two domains of realism. The distinction of ontic versus epistemic interpretations can be addressed in the framework of algebraic quantum theory, which facilitates a better understanding of a number of so-called enigmas and paradoxes of existing interpretations of quantum theory.
Though this framework is very appealing, it is still too simplistic to account for situations in which holistic {\it and} local elements occur at the same level of description. To cover such situations, the concept of "relative onticitiy" (inspired by Quine's ontological relativity) is introduced. It allows us to talk about referents of an interpretation ontically or epistemically, depending on the level of description that is used. For instance: an atomic nucleus is considered epistemic with respect to the descriptive level of elementary particle physics, but it is considered ontic with respect to the descriptive level of molecular chemistry or biology. This concept leads to many realisms in the sense of many levels of description with ontic and epistemic referents at each level.
It may be speculated that at some very basic level of onticity the distinction of mental and material domains of reality becomes irrelevant. The question remains to be clarified whether this level is already contained in contemporary quantum theory.