No it's not. The paper attributed to being the source of Ohm's Law was a physical experiement, it's been distorted ad infinitum throughout the years in it's meaning and teaching refrence, there is no clear definition of specifically what Ohm's law even is anywhere every source I find shows a slightly different viewpoint on it. Ohm's Law does not even actually apply to any known material in physics outside of the very carefully controlled experiments he produced and even then the results weren't perfectly linear.
The various equations have become very useful in electronics for simplified systems or systems within a boundary but the law itself doesn't actually make any sense for real world materials nor does it have any relation of any kind whatsoever to semi conductors,there's so much more math that has to be added to make things work in the real world it's ridiculous. This confusion is linguistic only! The reason it's still called Ohm's law is for the simple reason that there's nothing else to call it and it's so widley in use there would be a backlash if the scientific community tried to redefine the equations under some other name.
In electronics the equations are used because they work fantastically well, Ohm didn't create them he was just the first to publish a paper that described something linkable to what we now use, and the only reason he did the experiments in the first place is because he was getting poor wages as a teacher and at the time the only way to get a bigger pay check was to publish papers.
I do still need to research what Cavendish wrote in more detail and see how it directly applies to what is shown in Ohm's Paper.