W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > August 2014

Re: Does standardisation assume interoperability?

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 14:05:25 +0200
Message-ID: <53F73205.6070705@few.vu.nl>
To: <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi,

I'm not sure that discussing too much interoperability will help us get a quick solution. In fact in what Deirdre put below, item (c) implies that (a) and (b) are not necessary (they're just 'standard-focused' rewriting of (c) )

I don't understand what Joao Paulo said. He proposed to get rid of the the *Standardized requirements but he suggests to add them back, in practice.

In the end I would just keep
R-MetadataStandardized, making the point that standard should address the model, documentation and interoperability (as it should, see the intro at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization)
R-MetadataMachineReadable, assuming this includes format concerns (which with the first requirement gives you standardized formats).

Best,

Antoine

On 8/11/14 4:40 PM, Lee, Deirdre wrote:
> Thanks for your input Giancarlo and Laufer. Is it fair to summarise as follows:
>
> Two datasets are interoperable if:
>
> a.They are modelled according to the same standard.
>
> b.They are modelled according to standards that are interoperable
>
> c.They are modelled according to the same formal representation (not necessarily standardised)
>
> (b) corresponds to a case where we know how the meaning of the elements in each standard relate to the elements in the other standard.
>
> (c) corresponds to the case where you have used a reference ontology to facilitate the interoperability of ECG data.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Deirdre Lee
>
> Research Associate
>
> eGovernment Domain (DEG)
>
> Insight-NUIG
>
> IDA BusinessPark, Lower Dangan,
>
> Galway, Ireland
>
> deirdre.lee@deri.org <mailto:deirdre.lee@deri.org>
> skype: deirdrelee
>
> twitter: @deirdrelee
>
> linkedin: ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/ <http://ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Giancarlo Guizzardi [mailto:gguizzardi@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 11 August 2014 09:00
> *To:* Laufer
> *Cc:* Lee, Deirdre; Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group
> *Subject:* Re: Does standardisation assume interoperability?
>
> Folks,
>
> Regarding the two questions:
>
> (a) Does standardization entail interoperability?
>
> and (b) Can something be interoperable without being standardized?
>
> Let us first settled what we mean by interoperability.
>
> I will start with the following working definition of semantic interoperability:
>
> A model X is semantically interoperable with model Y if we know
>
> how the meaning of the elements in X relate to the meaning of elements in Y.
>
> If we take "meaning" in the sense of referential semantics, this means that
>
> we can always relate in the correct manner
>
> the referents of the model elements in X with the referents
>
> of the model elements in Y.
>
> With that in mind (and answering (b)), we can achieve interoperability whenever we are able
>
> to establish and fully understand the relation between the referents of X and Y.
>
> Good standards certainly facilitate that.
>
> However, if we put the question as "standardization ENTAILS interoperability" (question a),
>
> the answer is clearly no.  To put it simply, this is because (among other reasons, including non-technical ones...)
>
> there are bad standards. Bad standards in the sense that they are not sufficiently expressive and clear in helping
>
> users to express their world views in terms of the standard.
>
> There are many examples of domains with multiple standards
>
> that it is far from obvious how to relate the meaning of things
>
> in standard X and with the meaning of things in standard Y.
>
> This is even the case in the so-called hard science domains.
>
> To cite on example in heart Electrophysiogy.
>
> In the following paper
>
> http://www.j-biomed-inform.com/article/S1532-0464(10)00118-8/pdf
>
> we show the difficulties in relating multiple existing ECG standards.
>
> The paper is actually both an example of lack interoperability with
>
> the presence of multiple standards as well as an example of
>
> interoperability achieved with a reference ontology that is
>
> not a standard, i.e., "interoperability without a standard".
>
> Best,
>
> Giancarlo
>
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Laufer <laufer@globo.com <mailto:laufer@globo.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I don´t know if the following example makes sense to this discussion. But it comes to my mind.
>
> Analog television has some different standards as, for example, PAL and NTSC, and they are not interoperable.
>
> I don´t know if, in this case, the term should be compatible.
>
> Best,
> Laufer
>
> 2014-08-08 11:43 GMT-03:00 Lee, Deirdre <Deirdre.Lee@deri.org <mailto:Deirdre.Lee@deri.org>>:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     We had a good call today, addressing many of the raised issues for UCR. One issue that we felt warranted more discussion was /ISSUE-23: Review definition of interoperability/ https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/23
>
>     The following questions were raised: Does standardisation imply interoperability? Are there cases where data uses standards, but is not interoperable? Can interoperability be achieved independent of standardisation? In DWBP, should we have a specific definition of interoperability?
>
>     In the UCR, there are the following two requirements:
>
>     ·R-MetadataInteroperable
>
>     ·R-LicenseInteroperable
>
>     And also
>
>     ·R-MetadataMachineRead
>
>     ·R-MetadataStandardized
>
>     ·R-LicenseMachineRead
>
>     ·R-LicenseStandardized
>
>     Possible resolutions for the UCR could be:
>
>     a.Remove R–MetadataInteroperable and R-LicenseInteroperable from UCR because they’re redundant
>
>     b.Improve description of R-MetadataStandardized and R-LicenseStandardized
>
>     c.Other?
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Deirdre
>
>     -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Deirdre Lee
>
>     Research Associate
>
>     eGovernment Domain (DEG)
>
>     Insight-NUIG
>
>     IDA BusinessPark, Lower Dangan,
>
>     Galway, Ireland
>
>     deirdre.lee@deri.org <mailto:deirdre.lee@deri.org>
>     skype: deirdrelee
>
>     twitter: @deirdrelee
>
>     linkedin: ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/ <http://ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/>
>
>     -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> --
> .  .  .  .. .  .
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .
>
Received on Friday, 22 August 2014 12:05:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:24:16 UTC